NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, some american conductor actually stopped the BBC Last night of the proms from playing "Rule Britannia" in 2001?? Just because some americans were killed (so were brits by the way, and french, and germans, and.... - this comment is not against the americans at all - it's against that bloody conductor) he said it would insult them by playing it, even though it is traditional to play the tune every year at the Last Night of the Proms!! Yeah, well done Yank man, just destroy tradition for us....sorry this is just simply because when the US it hit by a terrorist attack, some people seem to think the world must stop for ever in memorial to them....however, when the UK is hit by a terrorist attack, the US is made into the hero, and the UK is expected to carry on like nothing happened.....how is this right?

**note, this is only against the conductor, and people who think like him, noone else.**

It's like your attacking me but your not attacking me!

*head explodes*

It's like your attacking me but your not attacking me!

*head explodes*

Do you think like that conductor (can't remember his name) - i.e. do you think that playing Rule Britannia on the Proms would have been an insult to those who died?

You know...*snips while scratching head*..how is this right?

Honest to God, I dunno. You kinda lost me somewhere in there. But whatever happened... I think you're saying it happened four years ago. Is this a persistent problem or something? Sack the conductor. Seems straightforward enough.

The conductors name was Leonard Slatkin, if I recall correctly, and if you recall, the last night of the proms falls on September the 11th. Also, Rule Britannia is a very British piece, no? I'm sure if the British attack fell on sept11th, he'd have called for it to be played extra loudly?

If the attacks had occured months before, then he probably would not have delayed. Since it was on the exact same day, it was a show of solidarity that whilst the USA is suffering the biggest terrorist attack it has ever received, its close allies don't throw parties completely regardless.

He's retired now anyway, so you don't need to worry about him doing that again.

Honest to God, I dunno. You kinda lost me somewhere in there. But whatever happened... I think you're saying it happened four years ago. Is this a persistent problem or something? Sack the conductor. Seems straightforward enough.

It practically happens persitently - it's always made about america, and the UK is ALWAYS made to surrender to the US's whims and orders.

The conductors name was Leonard Slatkin, if I recall correctly, and if you recall, the last night of the proms falls on September the 11th. Also, Rule Britannia is a very British piece, no? I'm sure if the British attack fell on sept11th, he'd have called for it to be played extra loudly?

If the attacks had occured months before, then he probably would not have delayed. Since it was on the exact same day, it was a show of solidarity that whilst the USA is suffering the biggest terrorist attack it has ever received, its close allies don't throw parties completely regardless.

He's retired now anyway, so you don't need to worry about him doing that again.
No, I thiknk you're wrong there, it would have been a far better sign of solidarity if, IF, they had played Rule Britannia follwed by (or following) The stars and stripes.

I don't think they quite had time to plan it. Besides, it has more impact if you break with tradition. His last "last night" was last year, like I said. Besides, in the British attacks, minute silences were held, in accordance with the prophecy.

That's more reason to STICK to tradition, show the world/terrorists that they are NOT GETTING THEIR WAY.

That's more reason to STICK to tradition, show the world/terrorists that they are NOT GETTING THEIR WAY.

Like I said, they didn't really have time to think it through. Maybe, on balance they should have, maybe they shouldn't have. I just relistened to the broadcast there to find his view on it. Apparently both he and the orchestra felt it would be improper not to mark what had happened in some way, hence the deviation from the program.

Like I said, they didn't really have time to think it through. Maybe, on balance they should have, maybe they shouldn't have. I just relistened to the broadcast there to find his view on it. Apparently both he and the orchestra felt it would be improper not to mark what had happened in some way, hence the deviation from the program.

Yeah, but like I said, it would have been far better to have played Rule Britannia and stars and stripes - it would have said, Britannia rules, but we sail along side our friends in the US...

Sorry but WTF are the Proms? Like HS graduation? Or is this something you british blokes do that yanks like me don't get?

Sorry but WTF are the Proms? Like HS graduation? Or is this something you british blokes do that yanks like me don't get?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proms

The Proms are a months-long classical music festival held in the UK, culminating in 'The Last Night', which is very popular, is televised on our main national TV channel and is watched on live relay by hundreds of thousands of people in several National Parks too.

The Proms have several traditional tunes that are always played, such as Rule Britannia and 'The Sailor's hornpipe' (Always played faster on each new line until the Orchestra are going incredibly fast, but since they also happen to be incredibly good at their job, they don't mess up!).

Terry Wogan (Who you probably havn't heard of) always hosts the live show in Hyde Park, and he always does it whilst blind drunk. :rolleyes:

You know, some american conductor actually stopped the BBC Last night of the proms from playing "Rule Britannia" in 2001?? Just because some americans were killed (so were brits by the way, and french, and germans, and.... - this comment is not against the americans at all - it's against that bloody conductor) he said it would insult them by playing it, even though it is traditional to play the tune every year at the Last Night of the Proms!! Yeah, well done Yank man, just destroy tradition for us....sorry this is just simply because when the US it hit by a terrorist attack, some people seem to think the world must stop for ever in memorial to them....however, when the UK is hit by a terrorist attack, the US is made into the hero, and the UK is expected to carry on like nothing happened.....how is this right?

**note, this is only against the conductor, and people who think like him, noone else.**
I'm not surprised. That's what this incessant PC crap gets you. People who visciously won't do traditional (and not harmful) things because some whiny anti-Western Culture sot's feelings might get hurt.

Peh. Brittian never, never, never, never shall be enslaved! (unless they vote for it :( )

It is not at all clear to me what "Rule Britannia" has to do with the 9-11 attacks or anything else. It makes as much sense as banning all consumption of cheddar cheese "in response to the attack".

Sack the conductor. Seems straightforward enough.yeah ...sack him already.

This conductor should be killed, what a sap!
That song is one of my favourites, it even makes me want to be English when I hear it.
I wish we had one that good. :(

britts are useless

can you tell me magnificent stuff they ever did

all they did was fight and take other nations wealth
if britian is wealthy today then this is beacuse of all the poor countries in africa, the UK, should adopt the countries it colonized and reconstruct it, that is if it wants to leave a contribution to the world.

obviuosly you agree with me
therfore ill be moving along and leaving this thread

Yes, Britain was so evil, what with our entering countries and leaving them with things like OMG SANITATION! And heck, they probably didn't want mass transport systems, or medical science (actually, make that science of almost any sort), or access to an education beyond "you hunt like this and you do what the tribal leader tells you". Yeah, we were so evil, weren't we? :rolleyes: (And while I'm at it, compare us with the French, Dutch and Portuguese and you'll see we weren't so bad as colonial masters.)

I'll admit that Britain's motivations for colonising 1/4 of the globe weren't altruistic (although there was, believe it or not, a sense that we should, as Kipling had it, "Take up the White Man's Burden"), but dammit, we left most of those nations (materially at least) a damned sight better off than we found them, and one can hardly blame us if much of Africa has descended back into its old pattern of inane tribal and ethnic squabbles.

As to this whole thing with Rule, Britannia, I'm as patriotic as anyone here, but in this case I think it was the right thing to do. Slatkin may be a yank, and I may not agree with his dislike of the "nationalism" of the Last Night (an attitude which strikes me as a mite hypocritical if he expected us to change the content of said last night to show solidarity with America), but I think that in this case it was quite appropriate. That said, I think that the Last Night should be patriotic, because damn it all, we have a a lot to be patriotic about; it's a shame, however, that so many Britons seem to have developed a self-hating attitude towards their country.

britts are useless
can you tell me magnificent stuff they ever did
all they did was fight and take other nations wealth
if britian is wealthy today then this is beacuse of all the poor countries in africa, the UK, should adopt the countries it colonized and reconstruct it, that is if it wants to leave a contribution to the world.

Get lost idiot. The Brits are good.

Get lost idiot. The Brits are good.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Brits are good, but Tradition is.....afterall isn't that what the yanks love about the UK, the fact that there still IS some tradition left here?

britts are useless

can you tell me magnificent stuff they ever did

all they did was fight and take other nations wealth
if britian is wealthy today then this is beacuse of all the poor countries in africa, the UK, should adopt the countries it colonized and reconstruct it, that is if it wants to leave a contribution to the world.
so you're saying we should set up the empire again? :confused:

as a brit i can honestly say that conductor could have handled things diffrently a min of silence followed by rule britania then the stars n stripes would have been a far better solution then u get the solidarity of both nations an the repect for the dead its just a shame we cant find the people who start all this hatered an deal with them quickly
:sniper: <ok i did this becouse i like it not becouse im saying shoot the buggers mkay....

obviuosly you agree with me
therfore ill be moving along and leaving this thread
Please tell me how a good deal of ex British Colonies would have,
Sanitation Systems
Medical Science
Infrastucture
Education (obviously something you lived without)
Central Government
Democracy (the good colonies anyway)

Now take that from the countries and what do you have, a tinpot dictatorship with a big army and wars. For example, compare Indonesia/Phillipines (Dutch/US) to Malaysia/Singapore (British)
And which is superior? Cough cough. Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, all competing and fairly powerful (SA comparatively to Africa) nations that were EX colonies. And ALL British ex colonies. We may have been an Empire, and a fairly oppressive one at that, but we were a damn sight fucking better than the US Empire that's being established now.

You think after the London attacks and the Olympic bid win, we'll be able to afford it? The olympics are gonna cost somewhere in the realms of 12million you know...We've already lost way over 12mil on a pointless war with the amaericans...and besides from that, how is Blair gonna afford his 100,000 he needs for makeup every year if we re-set up the empire? :D

RULE BRITANNIA
When Britain first, at heaven’s command,
Arose from out the azure main,
Arose, arose, arose from out the azure main.
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang the strain.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

The nations not so blest as thee,
Must in their turn to tyrants fall,
Must in their turn, must in their turn,
To tyrants fall,
While thou shall flourish,
Shall flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

Chorus.

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke.
More dreadful, more dreadful
From each foreign stroke.
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.

Chorus.

Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down,
All their attempts, all their attempts
To bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame.
But work their woe and thy renown.

Chorus.

To thee belongs the rural reign,
Thy cities shall with commerce shine,
Thy cities shall, thy cities shall
With commerce shine.
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.

Chorus.

The muses still, with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair,
Shall to thy happy coast,
Thy happy coasts repair,
Best isle of beauty,
With matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.

Chorus.

All good british songs go like this:

We're better than you and we rule and we can do it pompously! na-ah *thumbs nose*

rule brittania, land of hope and glory, god save the queen... good old fashioned british spiorit from the days when we were the hot-blooded america-like country and america was a kid. now, we've calmed down a bit and america is an angsty teenager who hates fogey music.

makes sense the yank wouldn't want it played with his mates over... oh well, i can alwawys just sing it for myself.

THE BRITISH GRENADIERS


Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,
Of Hector and Lysander, and such great names as these,
But of all the world’s great heroes,
There’s none that can compare,
With a tow, row row row , row row row,
To the British Grenadiers.

None of these ancient heroes ne’er saw a cannon ball,
Nor knew the force of powder to slay their foes with all,
But our brave boys do know it and banish all their fears,
Sing tow, row row row , row row row,
For the British Grenadiers.

When e’er we are commanded to storm the palisades,
Our leaders march with fuses, and we with hand grenades;
We throw them from the glacis about the enemies’ ears,
Sing tow, row row row , row row row,
For the British Grenadiers.

And when the siege is over, we to the town repair.
The townsmen cry ‘Hurrah, boys, here comes a Grenadier’.
Here come the Grenadiers, my boys, who know no doubts or fears.
Sing tow, row row row , row row row,
For the British Grenadiers.

So let us fill a bumper, and drink a health to those,
Who carry caps and pouches, and wear the louped clouthes.
May they and their commanders live happy all their years.
Sing tow, row row row , row row row,
For the British Grenadiers.

Leonard Slatkin pwns and I wont hear a word against him, despite him being a colonial.

Still, Rule Britannia is an amazing song which isnt anti-American at all. I think a better thing to have done would be to play Rule Britannia and the Star Spangled Banner at the same time. Or altenatively, play one and then the other.

PS.

Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance divine
Shine forth upon those clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among those dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold,
Bring me my arrows of desire;
Bring me my spear! O, clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

-- William Blake

How about...

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles
Und im Unglück nun erst recht.
Nur im Unglück kann die Liebe
Zeigen ob sie stark und echt.
Und so soll es weiterklingen
Von Geschlechte zu Geschlecht:
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles
Und im Unglück nun erst recht. :|

Or in English

Germany, Germany above all,
and during disaster more than ever,
only in disaster can love
show whether it's strong and true;
And so shall the song continue
from generation to generation
|: Germany, Germany above all,
and during disaster more than ever.:|

Sorry, but wasn't it 'Deutschland ueber Alles' in Europe, something stinks here

To quote Blackadder:

<George> The war was started by the vicious hun and his nefarious Empire building!
<Edmund> At the current time, the British empire covers a quarter of the surface of the known world, whereas the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Polynesia. I hardly think we can be excused on the Imperialism front.

:P

Sorry, but wasn't it 'Deutschland ueber Alles' in Europe, something stinks here
About that:
"Germany above all" doesn't mean "Germany above Britain". It means "Germany above Lower Saxony". It was meant to inspire local leaders to put aside their problems and think of Germany as a whole before themselves...

Please tell me how a good deal of ex British Colonies would have,
Sanitation Systems
Medical Science
Infrastucture
Education (obviously something you lived without)
Central Government
Democracy (the good colonies anyway)

Now take that from the countries and what do you have, a tinpot dictatorship with a big army and wars. For example, compare Indonesia/Phillipines (Dutch/US) to Malaysia/Singapore (British)
And which is superior? Cough cough. Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, all competing and fairly powerful (SA comparatively to Africa) nations that were EX colonies. And ALL British ex colonies. We may have been an Empire, and a fairly oppressive one at that, but we were a damn sight fucking better than the US Empire that's being established now.

that proves the point that britts are usless... they only built infrastructure in australia(wich had a huge number of britt imigrants new zealnd canada and south africa

which were all the empire primary colonies

can you tell me what good did sudan,uganda,kenya,egypt,iraq,iran,east african coast, bangladesh, pakistan and india(excluding a very neat railway system) did the british add????

you should be comparing lebanon morocco and tunisia(french) to egypt,sudan and uganda

i think now that more realistic

ps:singapore and malaysia had 0% infrastructure added by british, probably only a harbor or two, the rest was built by time

i cant belive you are changing world history to suit your eggoistic needs

damn

How about...

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles
Und im Unglück nun erst recht.
Nur im Unglück kann die Liebe
Zeigen ob sie stark und echt.
Und so soll es weiterklingen
Von Geschlechte zu Geschlecht:
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles
Und im Unglück nun erst recht. :|

Or in English

Germany, Germany above all,
and during disaster more than ever,
only in disaster can love
show whether it's strong and true;
And so shall the song continue
from generation to generation
|: Germany, Germany above all,
and during disaster more than ever.:|

Or how about:

Aussie aussie aussie!

Oi! oi! oi!

Aussie aussie aussie!

Oi! oi! oi!

Aussie!

Oi!

Aussie!

Oi!

Aussie aussie aussie!

Oi! oi! oi!!!

Inspiring, hair raising, and deeply thought out provoking stuff. :(

*ahem*

India is now an emerging power, possibly superpower, and it wasnt even a united country before the British Empire. And all of the African nations you mentioned only have economies at all because of British built infrastructure and the only reason they're poor is because we left rather than them rebelling (which happened to most of the Empire, despite the popular view that Ghandi freed everything). If you look at ex-British colonies, on average they are richer than nations that were colonies of other European nations, or nations which were never colonised.

The British did what were asked of them. We left. They fucked it for themselves. And excuse me, the infrastructure (roads, railways, etc) is entirely british designed in Malaysia/Singapore and a good deal of it was built during colonial times. I'm not twisting the truth, i'm knowing it, and not adding ??? or ha u brits r gay wot u eva did to my posts. Please learn to spell and use a little thing we call "grammar" before you post, kthxbai.

Aussie aussie aussie!
Oi! oi! oi!
Well that's a little unfair.

Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia fair!
In joyful strains then let us sing,
"Advance Australia fair!"

Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

Aren't you German Gessler? Where are you from?

*ahem*

India is now an emerging power, possibly superpower, and it wasnt even a united country before the British Empire. And all of the African nations you mentioned only have economies at all because of British built infrastructure and the only reason they're poor is because we left rather than them rebelling (which happened to most of the Empire, despite the popular view that Ghandi freed everything). If you look at ex-British colonies, on average they are richer than nations that were colonies of other European nations, or nations which were never colonised.

did u study history...because you seem yo think that india had no histroy pre your occupation

ever headr of the indus civilization 6000 years ago, or the moghul dynasties 500 years ago and ended when you came in....

dont tell me you really belive that you made these countries civilized
i mean when was your country ever established???

compared to my country and its surrounding nations you havent got a chance...

SNIP And excuse me, the infrastructure (roads, railways, etc) is entirely british designed in Malaysia/Singapore and a good deal of it was built during colonial times. /SNIP

Interesting point, my uncle designed the software and programmed the computers that run the main tram systems in Singapore!! :D

Might i just say, that yes, i as a brit, unfortunately admit that India had civilisation before we came, but without us, they wouldn't be where they are today! They wouldn't have the trains, or the sanitation or anything!! So shut the hell up. If you don't like our way of doing things, then tough crap, you can stay in your own country where women are treated like dogs, and pretend our country doesn't exist!

RULE BRITANNIA!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

/SNIP

dont tell me you really belive that you made these countries civilized
i mean when was your country ever established???

.
So you'd prefer to live life without tarmac roads, cars, sewers, railways, central government, and hospitals, and schools that teach you more than "me throw spear, me clevah" ?

Civilisation comes in all different forms but there are some things that just make life better.

"me throw spear, me clevah"
Ey. Don't be arrogant. The Indians had good roads, sewers (in some places), hospitals, schools and a central government (at least in their kingdoms) before the British. They just didn't have guns, that's all.

did u study history...
Yes I do study history. Do you study basic spelling?

because you seem yo think that india had no histroy pre your occupation
India wasnt a country before the British Empire. It was occupied by a group of little kingdoms which were individually weak and mainly fought each other.

ever headr of the indus civilization 6000 years ago, or the moghul dynasties 500 years ago and ended when you came in....
...what's your point? I said that India wasnt a country before British colonised it, and it wasnt.

dont tell me you really belive that you made these countries civilized
i mean when was your country ever established???
Im saying that we united the Indian subcontinent... which we did.

compared to my country and its surrounding nations you havent got a chance...
omgwtflol :ph34r:

compared to my country and its surrounding nations you havent got a chance...

Eek, run away, a few woman hating, civil rights hating, freedom hating, rag wearing, spear wielding people are threatening us!! Oh the horror!! Go shag your camel...

Maybe they were good, but they weren't *as* good. I'm sorry but I have nothing but arrogance for omg ur d00md!1 AOLers.

India wasnt a country before the British Empire. It was occupied by a group of little kingdoms which were individually weak and mainly fought each other.
Note that India is a lot bigger than Britain, and that the various individual kingdoms are equal to various European nations. You may as well make the argument that Europe right now is barbaric because they aren't all united under some force.

Leonstein
Size=! neccessary
Or at least that's what my girlfriend tells me :P And , your forgetting OMG EU SUPERSTATE.

---
Eek, run away, a few woman hating, civil rights hating, freedom hating, rag wearing, spear wielding people are threatening us!! Oh the horror!! Go shag your camel... == borderline flaming, hilariously funny.

Britain is a great country which has done some great things, we have also like most countries made mistakes. But given the current difficulties we face surely the point is we should be able look proudly back at the good we have done, acknowledge the bad, and do the best that we can do on the gobal stage right now.

Note that India is a lot bigger than Britain, and that the various individual kingdoms are equal to various European nations. You may as well make the argument that Europe right now is barbaric because they aren't all united under some force.
Im not saying that India wasnt civilised because the continent was seperated. What Im saying is that by uniting India we have allowed it to become a very important world power in future, which is hardly what some people on this thread seem to be suggesting that the British Empire has done for its former charges. And clearly the little kingdoms were not equal to European nations if they were all conquered in their entirety by a single European nation despite other European nations helping them (ie. the French, in an attempt to drive Britain out of India during the Napoleonic Wars).

Aren't you German Gessler? Where are you from?

No Im Australian of Celtic stock, I just like the name Gessler, and German stuff in general.

Do many Scottish, Welsh or Irish members feel favourably about the empire? I've always thought of it more as something which english people feel more strongly about but I'm sure I could be wrong.

I've just noticed, but most of my first posts in this place i've spent defending my country (my native country in real life) from idiots who don't like it. What i don't get though, is if these idiot extremists don't like our country, why don't they just ignore it and go stay in their own countries, where hopefully they'll die from lack of sanitation...

Britain is a great country which has done some great things, we have also like most countries made mistakes. But given the current difficulties we face surely the point is we should be able look proudly back at the good we have done, acknowledge the bad, and do the best that we can do on the gobal stage right now.
Hear hear.
And while we're at the British cockflopping,
HMS HOOD TO THE RESCUE!
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h60000/h60452.jpg

Here is an article by an Indian scholar in favour of British colonialism:

TWO CHEERS FOR COLONIALISM

By DINESH D'SOUZA

Colonialism has gotten a bad name in recent decades. Anticolonialism was one of the dominant political currents of the 20th century, as dozens of European colonies in Asia and Africa became free. Today we are still living with the aftermath of colonialism. Apologists for terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, argue that terrorist acts are an understandable attempt on the part of subjugated non-Western peoples to lash out against their longtime Western oppressors. Activists at last year's World Conference on Racism, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have called on the West to pay reparations for slavery and colonialism to minorities and natives of the third world.

These justifications of violence, and calls for monetary compensation, rely on a large body of scholarship that has been produced in the Western academy. That scholarship, which goes by the name of anticolonial studies, postcolonial studies, or subaltern studies, is now an intellectual school in itself, and it exercises a powerful influence on the humanities and social sciences. Its leading Western scholars include Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Walter Rodney, and Samir Amin. Their arguments are supported by the ideas of third-world intellectuals like Wole Soyinka, Chinweizu, Ashis Nandy, and, perhaps most influential of all, Frantz Fanon.

The assault against colonialism and its legacy has many dimensions, but at its core it is a theory of oppression that relies on three premises: First, colonialism and imperialism are distinctively Western evils that were inflicted on the non-Western world. Second, as a consequence of colonialism, the West became rich and the colonies became impoverished; in short, the West succeeded at the expense of the colonies. Third, the descendants of colonialism are worse off than they would be had colonialism never occurred.

In a widely used text, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, the Marxist scholar Walter Rodney accuses European colonialism of "draining African wealth and making it impossible to develop more rapidly the resources of the continent." The African writer Chinweizu strikes a similar note in his influential book The West and the Rest of Us. He offers the following explanation for African poverty: "White hordes have sallied forth from their Western homelands to assault, loot, occupy, rule, and exploit the world. Even now the fury of their expansionist assault on the rest of us has not abated." In his classic work The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon writes, "European opulence has been founded on slavery. The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians, and the yellow races."

Those notions are pervasive and emotionally appealing. By suggesting that the West became dominant because it is oppressive, they provide an explanation for Western global dominance without encouraging white racial arrogance. They relieve the third world of blame for its wretchedness. Moreover, they imply politically egalitarian policy solutions: The West is in possession of the "stolen goods" of other cultures, and it has a moral and legal obligation to make some form of repayment. I was raised to believe in such things, and among most third-world intellectuals they are articles of faith. The only problem is that they are not true.

There is nothing uniquely Western about colonialism. My native country of India, for example, was ruled by the British for more than two centuries, and many of my fellow Indians are still smarting about that. What they often forget, however, is that before the British came, the Indians had been invaded and conquered by the Persians, the Afghans, Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Arabs, and the Turks. Depending on how you count, the British were preceded by at least six colonial powers that invaded and occupied India since ancient times. Indeed, ancient India was itself settled by the Aryan people, who came from the north and subjugated the dark-skinned indigenous people.

Those who identify colonialism and empire only with the West either have no sense of history or have forgotten about the Egyptian empire, the Persian empire, the Macedonian empire, the Islamic empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese empire, and the Aztec and Inca empires in the Americas. Shouldn't the Arabs be paying reparations for their destruction of the Byzantine and Persian empires? Come to think of it, shouldn't the Byzantine and Persian people be paying reparations to the descendants of the people they subjugated? And while we're at it, shouldn't the Muslims reimburse the Spaniards for their 700-year rule?

As the example of Islamic Spain suggests, the people of the West have participated in the game of conquest not only as the perpetrators, but also as the victims. Ancient Greece, for example, was conquered by Rome, and the Roman Empire itself was destroyed by invasions of Huns, Vandals, Lombards, and Visigoths from northern Europe. America, as we all know, was itself a colony of England before its war of independence; England, before that, had been subdued and ruled by Normans from France. Those of us living today are taking on a large project if we are going to settle on a rule of social justice based on figuring out whose ancestors did what to whom.

The West did not become rich and powerful through colonial oppression. It makes no sense to claim that the West grew rich and strong by conquering other countries and taking their stuff. How did the West manage to do that? In the late Middle Ages, say 1500, the West was by no means the world's most affluent or most powerful civilization. Indeed, those of China and of the Arab-Islamic world exceeded the West in wealth, in knowledge, in exploration, in learning, and in military power. So how did the West gain so rapidly in economic, political, and military power that, by the 19th century, it was able to conquer virtually all of the other civilizations? That question demands to be answered, and the oppression theorists have never provided an adequate explanation.

Moreover, the West could not have reached its current stage of wealth and influence by stealing from other cultures, for the simple reason that there wasn't very much to take. "Oh yes there was," the retort often comes. "The Europeans stole the raw material to build their civilization. They took rubber from Malaya, cocoa from West Africa, and tea from India." But as the economic historian P.T. Bauer points out, before British rule, there were no rubber trees in Malaya, no cocoa trees in West Africa, no tea in India. The British brought the rubber tree to Malaya from South America. They brought tea to India from China. And they taught the Africans to grow cocoa, a crop the native people had never heard of. None of this is to deny that when the colonialists could exploit native resources, they did. But that larceny cannot possibly account for the enormous gap in economic, political, and military power that opened up between the West and the rest of the world.

What, then, is the source of that power? The reason the West became so affluent and dominant in the modern era is that it invented three institutions: science, democracy, and capitalism. All those institutions are based on universal impulses and aspirations, but those aspirations were given a unique expression in Western civilization.

Consider science. It is based on a shared human trait: the desire to know. People in every culture have tried to learn about the world. Thus the Chinese recorded the eclipses, the Mayans developed a calendar, the Hindus discovered the number zero, and so on. But science -- which requires experiments, laboratories, induction, verification, and what one scholar has called "the invention of invention," the scientific method -- that is a Western institution. Similarly, tribal participation is universal, but democracy -- which involves free elections, peaceful transitions of power, and separation of powers -- is a Western idea. Finally, the impulse to trade is universal, and there is nothing Western about the use of money, but capitalism -- which requires property rights, contracts, courts to enforce them, limited-liability corporations, stock exchanges, patents, insurance, double-entry bookkeeping -- this ensemble of practices was developed in the West.

It is the dynamic interaction among these three Western institutions -- science, democracy, and capitalism -- that has produced the great wealth, strength, and success of Western civilization. An example of this interaction is technology, which arises out of the marriage between science and capitalism. Science provides the knowledge that leads to invention, and capitalism supplies the mechanism by which the invention is transmitted to the larger society, as well as the economic incentive for inventors to continue to make new things.

Now we can understand better why the West was able, between the 16th and 19th centuries, to subdue the rest of the world and bend it to its will. Indian elephants and Zulu spears were no match for British rifles and cannonballs. Colonialism and imperialism are not the cause of the West's success; they are the result of that success. The wealth and power of European nations made them arrogant and stimulated their appetite for global conquest. Colonial possessions added to the prestige, and to a much lesser degree the wealth, of Europe. But the primary cause of Western affluence and power is internal -- the institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism acting together. Consequently, it is simply wrong to maintain that the rest of the world is poor because the West is rich, or that the West grew rich off stolen goods from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The West created its own wealth, and still does.

The descendants of colonialism are better off than they would be if colonialism had never happened. I would like to illustrate this point through a personal example. While I was a young boy, growing up in India, I noticed that my grandfather, who had lived under British colonialism, was instinctively and habitually antiwhite. He wasn't just against the English; he was generally against white people. I realized that I did not share his antiwhite animus. That puzzled me: Why did he and I feel so differently?

Only years later, after a great deal of reflection and a fair amount of study, did the answer finally hit me. The reason for our difference of perception was that colonialism had been pretty bad for him, but pretty good for me. Another way to put it was that colonialism had injured those who lived under it, but paradoxically it proved beneficial to their descendants. Much as it chagrins me to admit it -- and much as it will outrage many third-world intellectuals for me to say it -- my life would have been much worse had the British never ruled India.

How is that possible? Virtually everything that I am, what I do, and my deepest beliefs, all are the product of a worldview that was brought to India by colonialism. I am a writer, and I write in English. My ability to do this, and to reach a broad market, is entirely thanks to the British. My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was largely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity -- they are all the products of Western civilization.

I am not suggesting that it was the intention of the colonialists to give all those wonderful gifts to the Indians. Colonialism was not based on philanthropy; it was a form of conquest and rule. The British came to India to govern, and they were not primarily interested in the development of the natives, whom they viewed as picturesque savages. It is impossible to measure, or overlook, the pain and humiliation that the British inflicted during their long period of occupation. Understandably, the Indians chafed under that yoke. Toward the end of the British reign in India, Mahatma Gandhi was asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?" He replied, "I think it would be a good idea."

Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a certain amount of infrastructure to effectively govern India. So they built roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems, and government buildings. Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice. And so the British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like "innocent until proven guilty." The British also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke. In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on.

That brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the language of freedom. Once again, it was not the objective of the colonial rulers to encourage rebellion. But by exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, they did. The Indian leaders were the product of Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru was a product of Harrow and Cambridge. That exposure was not entirely to the good; Nehru, for example, who became India's first prime minister after independence, was highly influenced by Fabian socialism through the teachings of Harold Laski. The result was that India had a mismanaged socialist economy for a generation. But my broader point is that the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language, and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors. This was true not just of India but also of other Asian and African countries that broke free of the European yoke.

My conclusion is that against their intentions, the colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism. It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things by themselves. It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee -- the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own. Imagine an African or Indian king encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, "You know, I think those fellows have a good point. I should relinquish my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule." Somehow, I don't see that as likely.

Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa, and South America the blessings of Western civilization. Many of those cultures continue to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment, but that is not due to an excess of Western influence; rather, it is due to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized. Sub-Saharan Africa, which is probably in the worst position, has been described by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as "a cocktail of disasters." That is not because colonialism in Africa lasted so long, but because it lasted a mere half-century. It was too short a time to permit Western institutions to take firm root. Consequently, after their independence, most African nations have retreated into a kind of tribal barbarism that can be remedied only with more Western influence, not less. Africa needs more Western capital, more technology, more rule of law, and more individual freedom.

The academy needs to shed its irrational prejudice against colonialism. By providing a more balanced perspective, scholars can help to show the foolishness of policies like reparations as well as justifications of terrorism that are based on anticolonial myths. None of this is to say that colonialism by itself was a good thing, only that bad institutions sometimes produce good results. Colonialism, I freely acknowledge, was a harsh regime for those who lived under it. My grandfather would have a hard time giving even one cheer for colonialism. As for me, I cannot manage three, but I am quite willing to grant two. So here they are: two cheers for colonialism! Maybe you will now see why I am not going to be sending an invoice for reparations to Tony Blair.

Dinesh D'Souza is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author, most recently, of What's So Great About America, to be published this month by Regnery.

HMS HOOD TO THE RESCUE!
Do you want me to get out a picture of the Bismarck?

Look at Britain on a map, compare it to the rest of the worlds surface and then take a moment to consider what it's created compared to it's size.

Taking these forums as an example - Britain has contributed the language we're typing in, the internet itself, electricity etc etc

Britain rocks :cool:

Do you want me to get out a picture of the Bismarck?

May I remind you the hit that killed Hood was a lucky shot from the bismarck, and I will not, not on my watch, allow someone to make a sarcastic mockery of the men that died that day fighting fascism and upholding the morals of western civilisation and defending the world from a menace that was threatening to raise the swastika over our green land. HMS Hood was a wonderful ship and it's fortunate that it's and it's crews death was avenged by the superiority of the Royal Navy.

/me LAMENTs the death of Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Valiant, Warspite, Hood, Repulse, Prince of Wales, and all the minor combatants lost in action in WWII fighting the fascist menace.

Taking these forums as an example - Britain has contributed the language we're typing in, the internet itself, electricity etc etc
As someone said: Size doesn't matter at all.
Language? Yes, but feel free to type German. I'm being polite enough to use your language: Credit me, don't credit yourself.

Internet? I believe that was a military/academic idea from the states, wasn't it?

Electricity? What do you mean? The word was coined by a Brit, but the project is an international one. Voltaire? Ohm?

Look at Britain on a map, compare it to the rest of the worlds surface and then take a moment to consider what it's created compared to it's size.

Taking these forums as an example - Britain has contributed the language we're typing in, the internet itself, electricity etc etc

Britain rocks :cool:

Indeed we do. We are on of the smaller nations in this big world, yet we managed to colonise a quarter of it.

Britain rocks :cool:

HELL YEAH!!!!!

And going back on topic now, who's right was it to change the program of the Last Night, why couldn't we brits be patriotic? Especially on a day when some of OUR citezens died in that attack too? Come on, where was the f*****g sense that day?

May I remind you the hit that killed Hood was a lucky shot from the bismarck, and I will not, not on my watch, allow someone to make a sarcastic mockery of the men that died that day fighting fascism and upholding the morals of western civilisation and defending the world from a menace that was threatening to raise the swastika over our green land...
Your land is green, is it? :D
I always thought of it as more grey...rain. Always rain on Asphalt.

It was a lucky shot, but nonetheless, the Bismarck was the newer, bigger and better armed ship. The hit just shortened the misery.

And I for one lament the death of everyone who died because of nationalism and unnecessary pride in one's nation. That includes those on the Hood, those on the Bismarck, those on the Musashi, those on the Arizona and all the rest of them.

Slightly off the current theme, but here goes anyway. i saw someone had put up the words to Jerusalem. Isn't that a great song? Every line of the first verse ends in 'no'. Watch...

Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?

Er, no.

And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

Nope.

And did the Countenance divine
Shine forth upon those clouded hills?

Probably not.

And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among those dark satanic mills?

Definitely not. it's miles away. unless you count the little village in lincolnshire...


What a great song.

Incidentally, I'm a Brit and patriotic as the rest. Say what you like, but Britain and the British people have done more good than harm to the world. While the French were decapitating their nobility, we had the likes of Wesley building a heart for social justice. People like William Wilberforce (abolition of the slave trade), Emeline Pankhurst (women's rights), William Booth (Sally Army) and countless others. And we exported a lot of those social concerns to our colonies.
Yes we got it wrong sometimes - terribly so on occasion (land grabs in central southern Africa etc.), but as a nation we have always had a deep concern for the wellbeing of all people, and still do. Witness the donations per capita when the Tsunami happened - we shamed not just our own government but a few others as well into drastically upping the level of aid they were going to give.

Interesting point, my uncle designed the software and programmed the computers that run the main tram systems in Singapore!! :D


And my father designed the bus system in Kuala Lumpur in the late 1970's, hence why I was born in Malaysia.

I find it rather amusing that someone would assert that the British contributed nothing to the Malayan Peninsular, as there was basically nothing there except maybe the odd fishing village before the Portuguese first established a trading post, which was of course nabbed by the British in IIRC the 18th Century. Saying that, Portuguese trading posts and colonies outside of Africa or South America had a tendency to get pinched by either the Dutch, the British or I believe even the French.

Back to Malaysia and Singapore. Well, Singapore was founded by the British, prior to that it was a rather swampy island. The same is true of Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. The name literally means 'Muddy River' in Malay, and was originally a tin mining operation, which as the tin ran out gradually turned into an administrative centre, and of course most important of all, became the city where I was born :D

So, Malaysia and Singapore was quite literally built by the British, with of course lots of help from Chinese and Indian immigrants. So not only did the British have a very large part in creating the physical geography of the peninsular, but the human geography is also largely a result of the British. Although saying that, the Chinese had been there for quite some time, about six hundred years in fact, from the time when the fleets were scrapped, just prior to the Portuguese rounding the horn.


Ok, just one other thing. India wasn't actually conquered by Britain, it was conquered by a British joint stock company. Possibly the first example of a privatised country, which obviously went all wrong when the requirement to tax to raise revenue conflicted with the need to provide famine relief, thus resulting in public outcry back in Britain, which in turn resulted in the adoption of British India by the crown.

Oh, and the conquest of India, as with much of the British Empire was entirely accidental. I suggest that you do some reading on 'creeping frontiers' if you fail to understand this concept.

Your land is green, is it? :D
I always thought of it as more grey...rain. Always rain on Asphalt.

Hmm. Ever been to Britain? I grew up in the Peak District, lived recently near the Lake District, and now live near what's left of Sherwood Forest. I'd say green pretty much covers it...

Note: That's not to say other countries aren't equally green. Including Germany. What I've seen of it is particularly beautiful, but then I did the touristy thing and went round the Neuschwanstein area. Nice. Nürburgring next. One of the nicest bits of grey in the world...

Hey Stony Stratford, from that i'll guess you are half Malay/British? That's cool, cos I am too, and your the first person i've found on the internet that is also. In fact, i'm in Kota Kinabalu at my dads house as he lives over here (I think you can all guess where I live normally :P) This is pretty cool. Long live the Internet!

I always thought of Britain as the country of lush green grass :)

Hmm. Ever been to Britain? I grew up in the Peak District.

Peak District - definitely my favourite place in Britain!

The BBC should have conducted his ass out of the building.

I suppose it wasn't on, but not the end of the world. It was a few years ago. Time to take a deep breath and move on, while humming Rule Britannia, Britannia ruleessssssssss the waaaaaves.

(and besides the British navy isn't what it used to be!! ;) )

Leonstein - Bismarck was newer than Hood (and was actually a battleship, not a battlecruiser, which makes one wonder whether the Admiralty had bothered to analyse Jutland at all), but she wasn't actually all that new-fangled a ship. For instance, she retained the outmoded system of three batteries (primary, secondary and separate anti-aircraft battery of similar calibre) while most other navies used DP guns on their ships, and her armoured belt was placed relatively low in the ship, leaving the upper communications lines exposed to plunging fire and bombs. Not that it's a surprise, since the poor designers hadn't worked on a battleship since the SMS Baden of 1915. But when one compares the King George V and Bismarck, the more modern ship is immediately obvious.

The 2001 Last Night was actually on 15 September, 2001. The decision not to play "Rule, Britannia", along with various other traditionally-performed pieces such as "Pomp and Circumstance" and the Hornpipe was made because these songs are very upbeat and rousing. The decision at the time, according to the Proms director Nicholas Kenyon, was:

"We feel it is vital to respond to people’s mood at this sombre and difficult time, and at the same time to show that music can affirm our shared humanity. We will mark the tragedy in America with Barber’s Adagio and Tippett’s arrangements of classic spirituals, and then show that there is no more universal expression of the power of music to draw people together than the great Choral Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony."

BBC Press Release 2001 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/news/news340.htm)

Since 2001, to my knowledge, the Last Night has returned to its traditional format, and all the traditional pieces are back in their usual place. They have remained there ever since, and therefore it is a little perplexing why the original poster waited four years to express his concerns over something that only happened once.

Peak District - definitely my favourite place in Britain!Good on you.

Signed,

A Peak District Resident.

:D

The 2001 Last Night was actually on 15 September, 2001. The decision not to play "Rule, Britannia", along with various other traditionally-performed pieces such as "Pomp and Circumstance" and the Hornpipe was made because these songs are very upbeat and rousing. The decision at the time, according to the Proms director Nicholas Kenyon, was:

"We feel it is vital to respond to people’s mood at this sombre and difficult time, and at the same time to show that music can affirm our shared humanity. We will mark the tragedy in America with Barber’s Adagio and Tippett’s arrangements of classic spirituals, and then show that there is no more universal expression of the power of music to draw people together than the great Choral Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony."

BBC Press Release 2001 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/news/news340.htm)

Since 2001, to my knowledge, the Last Night has returned to its traditional format, and all the traditional pieces are back in their usual place. They have remained there ever since, and therefore it is a little perplexing why the original poster waited four years to express his concerns over something that only happened once.

A) Because I haven't been on NS til this year, and therefore didn't have a method of talking about this.
B) Most importantly Because the recent attacks on London, and the US's insistence on making the attacks about THEM have brought it back to mind.

As for the 'mood' of the British public (the only people who really give a toss about the Proms), though sombre, was, as is now, that shit happens, and it oftens happens to good people, but still life continues - why did the program have to change for the mood of the people who at the time wanted nothing more than a pick me up? rousing songs/tunes to cheer the hearts of those affected, rather than crap sad music to depress everyone even further.

It practically happens persitently - it's always made about america, and the UK is ALWAYS made to surrender to the US's whims and orders.
Its not just the UK mate. everyone has to tow the yankee line, or else...

Leonstein - Bismarck was newer than Hood (and was actually a battleship, not a battlecruiser, which makes one wonder whether the Admiralty had bothered to analyse Jutland at all), but she wasn't actually all that new-fangled a ship. For instance, she retained the outmoded system of three batteries (primary, secondary and separate anti-aircraft battery of similar calibre) while most other navies used DP guns on their ships, and her armoured belt was placed relatively low in the ship, leaving the upper communications lines exposed to plunging fire and bombs. Not that it's a surprise, since the poor designers hadn't worked on a battleship since the SMS Baden of 1915. But when one compares the King George V and Bismarck, the more modern ship is immediately obvious.
The designers of the Bismarck worked also on the Scharnhorsts--indeed, the allocation of the armour was almost identical there and yes, it was 'old-fashioned'. But the KGVs were far from perfect, too...

Its not just the UK mate. everyone has to tow the yankee line, or else...


Not the Chinese, according to the Economist they run the world economy these days. Oh and I'd suggest investing in US bonds right about now, as the Yuan has been unpegged from the dollar.

Hey Stony Stratford, from that i'll guess you are half Malay/British? That's cool, cos I am too, and your the first person i've found on the internet that is also. In fact, i'm in Kota Kinabalu at my dads house as he lives over here (I think you can all guess where I live normally :P) This is pretty cool. Long live the Internet!


I'm afraid to say that I am actually 1/2 English, 1/4 German and 1/4 Polish, with a dab of Scottish (my surname seems to come from Scotland) and a possible smidgen of Welsh (my mother was born and raised in Wales, but had German and Polish parents).

I was merely born and spent the first year and a half of my life in Malaysia, as my father was doing contract work for the Malay government at the time.

I do however have a great fondness for the country, so much so that I spent my honeymoon there last year. Which as it happens was the first time I'd been back since 1979, and I was only a year and a half old at that point. Needless to say, this only served to increase my fondness for the place, and given the chance I'd go back again on holiday as soon as I can, and maybe even live there for a couple of years.

And onto NS stuff. I founded the region of 'Malaya' due to my connections with Malaysia, feel free to visit it in-game, leave a puppet there or even move your main nation there if you really want.

As someone said: Size doesn't matter at all.
Language? Yes, but feel free to type German. I'm being polite enough to use your language: Credit me, don't credit yourself.

Internet? I believe that was a military/academic idea from the states, wasn't it?

Electricity? What do you mean? The word was coined by a Brit, but the project is an international one. Voltaire? Ohm?

I think you mean Volta. Unless the author of "Candide" was doing a bit of Electrical work on the side...

Poo-chunks, looks like I should have signed in as SS doesn't it? Can you tell I generally avoid this forum like the plague? ;)

You know, some american conductor actually stopped the BBC Last night of the proms from playing "Rule Britannia" in 2001?? Just because some americans were killed (so were brits by the way, and french, and germans, and.... - this comment is not against the americans at all - it's against that bloody conductor) he said it would insult them by playing it, even though it is traditional to play the tune every year at the Last Night of the Proms!! Yeah, well done Yank man, just destroy tradition for us....sorry this is just simply because when the US it hit by a terrorist attack, some people seem to think the world must stop for ever in memorial to them....however, when the UK is hit by a terrorist attack, the US is made into the hero, and the UK is expected to carry on like nothing happened.....how is this right?

**note, this is only against the conductor, and people who think like him, noone else.**

What is/are the Proms?

and

I love that song... is it England fans' favorite song to sing/yell at England soccer games?

The designers of the Bismarck worked also on the Scharnhorsts--indeed, the allocation of the armour was almost identical there and yes, it was 'old-fashioned'. But the KGVs were far from perfect, too...

Hey, never said they weren't. Yay fourteen inch gun, for instance, and yay also that bloody quadruple turret. But overall I'd still place the KGVs above the Tirpitzes for combat effectiveness (though bugger me if your guns and rangefinders weren't good!)

Hey, never said they weren't. Yay fourteen inch gun, for instance, and yay also that bloody quadruple turret. But overall I'd still place the KGVs above the Tirpitzes for combat effectiveness (though bugger me if your guns and rangefinders weren't good!)
I agree, the KGVs had better armour, and their 14-inch guns were quite enough for the North Atlantic theatre of operations with its generally poor weather. But they were quite slow, and quad turrets were verry troublesome.

You know, some american conductor actually stopped the BBC Last night of the proms from playing "Rule Britannia" in 2001?? Just because some americans were killed (so were brits by the way, and french, and germans, and.... - this comment is not against the americans at all - it's against that bloody conductor) he said it would insult them by playing it, even though it is traditional to play the tune every year at the Last Night of the Proms!! Yeah, well done Yank man, just destroy tradition for us....sorry this is just simply because when the US it hit by a terrorist attack, some people seem to think the world must stop for ever in memorial to them....however, when the UK is hit by a terrorist attack, the US is made into the hero, and the UK is expected to carry on like nothing happened.....how is this right?

**note, this is only against the conductor, and people who think like him, noone else.**

Oh christ, who really cares? "Rule Britannia" is a loathesome piece of jingoistic crap (which was - also - quite deceiptful, given most British were close to slavery when it was written), and the people who attend the Proms are braying, inbred hooray henrys who get orgasmic about waving a poxy little flag around.

If thats your major beef about events post 9/11 then you have serious issues, imho.

Good on you.

Signed,

A Peak District Resident.

:D
Yup, used to live there once (for a year) and it still feels like home when I go and visit. Great place great people!

Right. So when do we set up the Peak District Appreciation Society region? :D

Incidentally, I grew up in Matlock (near enough). You two?

I think you mean Volta. Unless the author of "Candide" was doing a bit of Electrical work on the side...
:D
Yes, indeed. How embarrassing!

Oh christ, who really cares? "Rule Britannia" is a loathesome piece of jingoistic crap (which was - also - quite deceiptful, given most British were close to slavery when it was written), and the people who attend the Proms are braying, inbred hooray henrys who get orgasmic about waving a poxy little flag around.

If thats your major beef about events post 9/11 then you have serious issues, imho.

If your major beef is with a nationalistic song that was written to inspire and still does, then you have some serious issues, imho.

Oh christ, who really cares? "Rule Britannia" is a loathesome piece of jingoistic crap (which was - also - quite deceiptful, given most British were close to slavery when it was written), and the people who attend the Proms are braying, inbred hooray henrys who get orgasmic about waving a poxy little flag around.


Jingoistic crap!? Rule Britannia is a song about defiance, written after the battle of trafalgar, the songs theme of defiance is the reason why it should have been played on the last night of the proms, to show that the terrorists will not succeed in making us change. I also believe that the stars and stripes should have been played after as well.

And another thing, the people you refer to as 'close to slavery' were as free as any people in the world, more so than the americans as the slavery was still around. Sure they didnt have the vote at the time, but then how many democracies in the early 19th century allowed women and the working class to vote?

Jingoistic crap!? Rule Britannia is a song about defiance, written after the battle of trafalgar, the songs theme of defiance is the reason why it should have been played on the last night of the proms, to show that the terrorists will not succeed in making us change. I also believe that the stars and stripes should have been played after as well.

And another thing, the people you refer to as 'close to slavery' were as free as any people in the world, more so than the americans as the slavery was still around. Sure they didnt have the vote at the time, but then how many democracies in the early 19th century allowed women and the working class to vote?

Actually 'Rule Britannia' was written by James Thomson, and put to music by Thomas Arne in 1740, sixity five years before the Battle of Traflgar. It was part of a masque called Alfred.

I agree with your criticisms of the other person though.

Right. So when do we set up the Peak District Appreciation Society region? :D
Incidentally, I grew up in Matlock (near enough). You two?
I know Matlock a little. Isn't there a war memorial in a cemetery on a hill? If I remember correctly, one of the more strange events of my life took place there.

I used to live in Cheapel-en-le-Frith near Buxton.

A) Because I haven't been on NS til this year, and therefore didn't have a method of talking about this.NationStates is the Internet's only discussion forum?

B) Most importantly Because the recent attacks on London, and the US's insistence on making the attacks about THEM have brought it back to mind.I wasn't aware the US HAD made it about them. I'm aware that they tried to tackle it in a rather American sort of way (love and hugs across the Atlantic, we're all Londoners today, and all that nonsense) - but the British attitude soon discouraged all that.

It's what's happened to the British spirit since that's got me down.As for the 'mood' of the British public (the only people who really give a toss about the Proms), though sombre, was, as is now, that shit happens, and it oftens happens to good people, but still life continues - why did the program have to change for the mood of the people who at the time wanted nothing more than a pick me up? rousing songs/tunes to cheer the hearts of those affected, rather than crap sad music to depress everyone even further.So you disagreed with the decision that was made. Fair enough. But we know why it was made, and it was four years ago, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

It practically happens persitently - it's always made about america, and the UK is ALWAYS made to surrender to the US's whims and orders.


I thought the Revolutionary War settled the issue of "Rule Britannia" in America?

I thought the Revolutionary War settled the issue of "Rule Britannia" in America?

The Queen may no longer be on America's coins and postage stamps, but considering that you speak our language, and are (mostly) descended from from British stock, our silent dominion is un-ending :D

The Queen may no longer be on America's coins and postage stamps, but considering that you speak our language, and are (mostly) descended from from British stock, our silent dominion is un-ending :D

Well said, kind of... Look at the American version of English though - it's crap. Color....what the hell??? It's spelled "colour"!! Dimwits! And what about all this "ism" an ending to a pronoun invented by the Americans because thy are too lazy to say "isation" so instead of having Americanisations we get Americanism!! What stupid fool thought that up?? Huh??

www.freewebs.com/thegrammarphantom

Well said, kind of... Look at the American version of English though - it's crap. Color....what the hell??? It's spelled "colour"!!Actually, 'color' is the original English (and Latin) spelling. 'Colour' comes from the French.

And what about all this "ism" an ending to a pronoun invented by the Americans because thy are too lazy to say "isation" so instead of having Americanisations we get Americanism!!The two are not synonymous. "An Americanism" is a usage or convention from America used in other countries (usually in Britain). In that sense, "Americanism" describes a specific thing. "Americanisation" would be the process of making something like America. So as Britain adopts Americanisms, it is undergoing a process of Americanisation.

In my experience "Americanism" is common enough, but until now I had not encountered "Americanisation" in British colloquial use.

Jingoistic crap!? Rule Britannia is a song about defiance, written after the battle of trafalgar, the songs theme of defiance is the reason why it should have been played on the last night of the proms, to show that the terrorists will not succeed in making us change. I also believe that the stars and stripes should have been played after as well.

And another thing, the people you refer to as 'close to slavery' were as free as any people in the world, more so than the americans as the slavery was still around. Sure they didnt have the vote at the time, but then how many democracies in the early 19th century allowed women and the working class to vote?

Well, firstly you got your history wrong, Rule Britannia wasn't written about Trafalgar at all (and Trafalgar isn't the big deal it's always cracked up to be because Napoleon had already lead the army he had built up to "invade England" eastwards three months before...where he had an appointment with the Russian winter).

Secondly - more free than the Americans? When it was written
(a) we WERE the Americans and
(b) We had slavery.

and Thirdly, of course, other places at the time had the same level of "freedom" as the UK - the vast mass of the population had no freedom, but vague codified protection, just like the rest of the world. Try telling the Tolpuddle Martyrs, almost a century later, how free England was. Try telling the Chartists and those killed in the massacre in Manchester. Try telling the whole of Ireland. Try telling a Catholic how free the UK was in 1740.

Fourthly, the song isn't about defiance, it's about TRIUMPHALISM. We rule the waves so WE WILL NEVER BE SLAVES. But of course, those poor black fellows who don't rule the waves, we'll quite happily enslave them, despite our noble sentiments.

Pffft. Selective historians really get my goat. Any response along the lines of "but Britain abolished slavery first" get laughed at, because of course 200 years of profiteering at someone elses misery is negated by being ten years ahead of other nations, eh?

That's more reason to STICK to tradition, show the world/terrorists that they are NOT GETTING THEIR WAY.

To be honest, I don't think the terrorists would have given a damn either way. They'd have been two busy celebrating the death, destruction and misery they caused.

To be honest, I don't think the terrorists would have given a damn either way. They'd have been two busy celebrating the death, destruction and misery they caused.

"Crikey, we stopped the Proms playing Rule Brittania! OUR PLANS ARE SUCCEEDING OSAMA!"

or

"Golly, despite us killing thousands of innocent Americans, the English have played a bellicose song at the end of a decayed and farcical series of public concerts. We may as well pack in this terrorism lark and head off to herd goats in Kashmir"

I don't see either response as being very likely, do you? Some people have a very very inflated sense of whats important in the world.

the end of a decayed and farcical series of public concertsReally?

I never realised. But yes, you're probably right. Let's ban them. After all, we can't go having CULTURE, now can we? How VERY three weeks ago, and SUCH a waste of money we could be spending on the military...

:rolleyes:

Right. So when do we set up the Peak District Appreciation Society region? :D

Incidentally, I grew up in Matlock (near enough). You two?Bakewell (near enough). :o)

You know, some american conductor actually stopped the BBC Last night of the proms from playing "Rule Britannia" in 2001?? Just because some americans were killed (so were brits by the way, and french, and germans, and.... - this comment is not against the americans at all - it's against that bloody conductor) he said it would insult them by playing it, even though it is traditional to play the tune every year at the Last Night of the Proms!! Yeah, well done Yank man, just destroy tradition for us....sorry this is just simply because when the US it hit by a terrorist attack, some people seem to think the world must stop for ever in memorial to them....however, when the UK is hit by a terrorist attack, the US is made into the hero, and the UK is expected to carry on like nothing happened.....how is this right?

**note, this is only against the conductor, and people who think like him, noone else.**


i couldnt agree more strongly..but on one point..we do carry on as usual..its what we are good at..200 bombs fell on london in a matter of days...the maxim of the british people is buisness as usual we dont make a big deal about things usualy...

Sorry but WTF are the Proms? Like HS graduation? Or is this something you british blokes do that yanks like me don't get?


:p :p :p native yakee wit! :p :p :p

Sorry but WTF are the Proms? Like HS graduation? Or is this something you british blokes do that yanks like me don't get?
Yes, this is yet another one of those British things, as well as all the other African, South American, Carribean, European, Asian and Australasian things which you yanks really just don't get!!

Yes, this is yet another one of those British things, as well as all the other African, South American, Carribean, European, Asian and Australasian things which you yanks really just don't get!!

the best advice we can offer him is to just stick to american culture..or lack there of..

Really?

I never realised. But yes, you're probably right. Let's ban them. After all, we can't go having CULTURE, now can we? How VERY three weeks ago, and SUCH a waste of money we could be spending on the military...

:rolleyes:

If thats your idea of CULTURE, then, yeah. Actually, i don't think it's the states place to spend on culture at all.

And no, Social Welfare. I'd get rid of the military.

If thats your idea of CULTURE, then, yeah. Actually, i don't think it's the states place to spend on culture at all.

And no, Social Welfare. I'd get rid of the military.You'd get rid of the military. Well, that'd be a bright plan, wouldn't it? Maybe a few rounds of Kum Ba Yah will do the trick instead?

It might explain why your soldiers are "slaughtered in their thousands due to lack of training", though...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/camdean2204/Jihad.jpg

Hmmm... Interesting points of view, a few crackpots and a few extreamly patriotic persons, nothing unexpected.
Now then, while I acknowlage the belief of the conductor not to play something which he may have felt to be predicial towards his country (America was once a British colony, and many of it's towns, cities and famous people have been British or influenced by the British), I do agree with others that his discision may, with hindsight, have been a little vexing to the British.

You'd get rid of the military. Well, that'd be a bright plan, wouldn't it? Maybe a few rounds of Kum Ba Yah will do the trick instead?

It might explain why your soldiers are "slaughtered in their thousands due to lack of training", though...

Yeah, get rid of the military. I don't really see much of a threat of anyone invading the UK, do you?

And please, are you saying that NationStates replicates real life? HAHAHA, don't be so foolish.

Don't you think it's just a bit ridiculous to start a thread on this FOUR YEARS after the event, to demand a man who RETIRED last year be sacked?

Are we really so devoid of things to criticize the US for that we need to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this, criticizing the US for its nationalism in the same breath that one is shouting the words to Rule Britannia at the top of one's voice?

I'm sorry, seems very hypocritical and silly to me.

--NON moderation opinion.

The Queen may no longer be on America's coins and postage stamps, but considering that you speak our language, and are (mostly) descended from from British stock, our silent dominion is un-ending :D

Strange attitude, given the current ethnic background of the country and the historical diversity here, my friend.

We never were just all happy Brits, you know. There's the small matter of the Dutch having colonized before England here... and the French (you DO remember the Louisiana Purchase, I am sure) and the Spanish (you know, Florida, the South West, California). There's evidence the Vikings were here, and heck, the Italians too!

;) Now you wouldn'r be sore at us because we were one of the first colonies of many to break away from the motherland, would you?

Well said, kind of... Look at the American version of English though - it's crap. Color....what the hell??? It's spelled "colour"!! Dimwits! And what about all this "ism" an ending to a pronoun invented by the Americans because thy are too lazy to say "isation" so instead of having Americanisations we get Americanism!! What stupid fool thought that up?? Huh??

www.freewebs.com/thegrammarphantom

*shrug* Why does it matter to you that we changed the language to suit us in our own nation? Do the French tell the Quebecois how to spell? We don't tell you you need to use American spellings.

Really, you're obsessive on this. Relax.

Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question, but if this event is in the UK and run by the UK, how is it that the decision was left up to an American to begin with? or was it? Could the change have been ordered from someone higher up? If it was indeed the conductor's decision, he should be highly ashamed of himself!

People need to respect the traditions of the country they are in - "when in rome.......". We also need to remember the purpose of the events in question, for instance if we are attending a concert, we expect music, not political commentary.

Sinead O'Connor cancelled a concert here in the US with about 2mins. notice because it was the tradition of the concert hall to play the National Anthem (a recorded version) prior to all events - Ms. O'Connor refused to sing stating that she did not agree with American politics and wouldn't support them by singing after the Anthem was played. Funny that she didn't mind making money by touring here though.

My husband and I were immensely enjoying a Peter Gabriel concert a couple years ago (the music was awesome) but left halfway through when the music stopped and we were verbally assaulted by Mr. Gabriel's political rant - over half those attending also left.

Yeah, get rid of the military. I don't really see much of a threat of anyone invading the UK, do you?No. Isn't it lucky we have a military? I wonder how many people would have wandered past and conquered us otherwise? There've been plenty of attempts over the years...

And please, are you saying that NationStates replicates real life? HAHAHA, don't be so foolish.No. But I can see I'm going to have to be careful to remember you have trouble working out the difference.

(Orcadia Tertius as was)

Don't you think it's just a bit ridiculous to start a thread on this FOUR YEARS after the event, to demand a man who RETIRED last year be sacked?

Are we really so devoid of things to criticize the US for that we need to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this, criticizing the US for its nationalism in the same breath that one is shouting the words to Rule Britannia at the top of one's voice?

I'm sorry, seems very hypocritical and silly to me.

--NON moderation opinion.It is absolutely ridiculous. According to the OP, this was the only forum available to him to give vent to his feelings on this in the last four years.

(Orcadia Tertius as was)

No. Isn't it lucky we have a military? I wonder how many people would have wandered past and conquered us otherwise? There've been plenty of attempts over the years....

Yes, thats true, there have been a couple of attempts over the years, when the continent of Europe was full of competing nations constantly fighting. Haven't been any wars in Europe that affected the UK for 60 years though. I don't really see the "threat" of invasion as particularly viable, do you? Unless you believe the French are secretly plotting...

No. But I can see I'm going to have to be careful to remember you have trouble working out the difference.

Then why bring it up? You know the game has exaggerated consequences from minor decisions, i didn't bother checking your nation state either. Unless, of course, you were practicing a basic ad hominem argument - "oh, well, your opinion on the military doesn't matter, because your nation state is rubbish". Resorting to Ad Homs so early on in the discussion. Nice :)

I think the the principle behind the complaint is probably that if there were a similar event in the US where they traditionally played something like the Stars and Stripes, or indeed some other 'patriotic' US song, such as 'America' (is that actually what its called BTW?). I cannot imagine that there would even be the suggestion to not play said song as a result of say the attacks that happened in London on 7/7/05 now would there?

Actually, the US obsession with all things jingoistic, the flying of flags, singing of the national anthem and so on at the drop of a hat is pretty damn annoying. Learn some humility why don't you? The rest of the world seems to get on ok without having to go on about how great they are all the sodding time. Well ok, maybe the French haven't learnt yet, but well that's partially the UK and the US's fault anyway I guess :rolleyes:

As to the original question type thingy. Well I couldn't give a toss really, The Proms is really something for the blue rinse brigade and readers of the Torygraph. The rest of the country has come to terms with the fact that Britain may be the most civilised place on the planet, but we are no longer in a posistion to boss everyone else around. Well, not unless you want to scrap the NHS, and the Blue Rinse Brigade would probably be dead set against such an idea ;)

The fact is, the meaning of the song has changed - it has now got more to do with "we are free, let's make the rest of the world free" than "we are free, let's enslave the blacks" as it used (I will admit this freely, though I support it as much as I support someone shooting me in the head - not at all) to be.

This song now means that we will never be enslaved, never be made to do things we don't want to, like surrender to terrorist scum - part of surrendering to terrorist scum, in my opinion, is changing our day to day lives and traditions - so therefore in my opinion (and quite a few other people's opinions judging by this thread, and by others that I have started elsewhere), by dropping Rule Britannia from the schedule of the proms, the conductor (whatever the hell his name was) was surrendering to the will of the terrorists.

As for why I started the thread 4 years post event, I have already explained, the attacks on London brought it to the front in my mind - plus, when 11/9 happened, you americans brought up shit from many years before too, and in fact started a pointless war that had nothing to do with the attacks and much more to do with bush letting his friends let off a little steam and steal a little oil while they were at it.

We never were just all happy Brits, you know. There's the small matter of the Dutch having colonized before England here... and the French (you DO remember the Louisiana Purchase, I am sure) and the Spanish (you know, Florida, the South West, California). There's evidence the Vikings were here, and heck, the Italians too!

As for the bull about the vikings being on america....do you not know british history?? That's basically what our stock came from - the Vikings invaded the UK! America itself was founded by british and dutch(am i right?) colonials. So therefore YOU are wrong talking about the foundation of the US.

Yes, thats true, there have been a couple of attempts over the years, when the continent of Europe was full of competing nations constantly fighting. Haven't been any wars in Europe that affected the UK for 60 years though. I don't really see the "threat" of invasion as particularly viable, do you? Unless you believe the French are secretly plotting...The point is that it's better to have a military that's ready and able to defend you, and not be attacked, than to be attacked and wish you had one.

Yes, in a nice love-and-hugs world such as a remarkable number of people seem to believe we live in, it'd be great to be able to just do away with the military. Sadly, though, it doesn't work like that. It's called deterrence: the military do a job just by being there. And if they weren't there, our borders would be open for anyone - yes, perhaps even the French, who do historically hold a great deal of enmity for us - to walk in and take over.

In all probability, they wouldn't, it's true - but it's a bit like that scene in Reservoir Dogs, if you remember. Somebody's got to be first to put the gun down. If you were in charge, it'd be you. Hey, great, hero of the hour, bringer of peace, and so on - IF everyone else did the same. If, on the other hand, someone decided to take the opportunity, you'd be hero of bugger all, and you'd have some seriously pissed-off people of your own to deal with.


Then why bring it up?Because I didn't realise that you were so utterly devoid of any sense of humour. My apologies. I will know better next time. Deadly serious posts only for Fischerspooner from here on in.

(By the way, the above is an ad hominem, if you want one - and richly deserved, if I may say so.)

The point is that it's better to have a military that's ready and able to defend you, and not be attacked, than to be attacked and wish you had one.

Yes, in a nice love-and-hugs world such as a remarkable number of people seem to believe we live in, it'd be great to be able to just do away with the military. Sadly, though, it doesn't work like that. It's called deterrence: the military do a job just by being there. And if they weren't there, our borders would be open for anyone - yes, perhaps even the French, who do historically hold a great deal of enmity for us - to walk in and take over.

In all probability, they wouldn't, it's true - but it's a bit like that scene in Reservoir Dogs, if you remember. Somebody's got to be first to put the gun down. If you were in charge, it'd be you. Hey, great, hero of the hour, bringer of peace, and so on - IF everyone else did the same. If, on the other hand, someone decided to take the opportunity, you'd be hero of bugger all, and you'd have some seriously pissed-off people of your own to deal with.


Because I didn't realise that you were so utterly devoid of any sense of humour. My apologies. I will know better next time. Deadly serious posts only for Fischerspooner from here on in.

(By the way, the above is an ad hominem, if you want one - and richly deserved, if I may say so.)

Yeah, it is better to have a military to defend oneself, ok. To a degree, agreed. But, to be honest, i don't foresee there being any such problem involving the UK for quite some time (unless that whole fishing right thing with the french which has been simmering for the past 30 years turns REALLY ugly). So we could afford the odd cutback in our armed forces, and stop joining the US in their self appointed role as world policeman (the "nice-hugs-and-peace" world thing is yet another method of ignoring debate, it's called "reductio et absurdio" i believe?)

As for the "Humourless" thing, you really don't get it do you? You brought up my nation state in what was meant to be a debate about issues, i responded and asked why, you called me humourless? Quite the opposite, actually.

It's just your joke wasn't FUNNY ;)

Yeah, it is better to have a military to defend oneself, ok. To a degree, agreed.Thank you. That's all I wanted to see.

So we could afford the odd cutback in our armed forcesWe're already cutting them to shreds - much more and there won't be much between cutbacks and your original suggestion.

(the "nice-hugs-and-peace" world thing is yet another method of ignoring debate, it's called "reductio et absurdio" i believe?)Is it? I'm glad someone's bothering to keep all these Latin phrases alive. It means I don't have to.

As for 'ignoring debate' - no, it's not... although I might contend that making terribly clever intellectual accusations like this might be. The point is that your suggestion of scrapping the military depends for its practicality and political acceptability on one thing: the absence of any current or possible future threat. If you can guarantee that - i.e., if you can be sure we live in a 'nice-hugs-and-peace' world, then sure, by all means dismantle the military.

UNTIL you can guarantee that we live in that sort of world - which, as I'm sure you realise, it's my precise point that we don't - your plan doesn't make a lot of sense. In short, it's something that everyone will no doubt agree would be 'nice' - but it's not something that's workable.


As for the "Humourless" thing, you really don't get it do you? You brought up my nation state in what was meant to be a debate about issues, i responded and asked why, you called me humourless? Quite the opposite, actually.

It's just your joke wasn't FUNNY ;)Very well. Then I will know better next time all the same: I have no sense of humour, and will limit myself to deadly serious posts from here on in.

To quote Blackadder:

<George> The war was started by the vicious hun and his nefarious Empire building!
<Edmund> At the current time, the British empire covers a quarter of the surface of the known world, whereas the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Polynesia. I hardly think we can be excused on the Imperialism front.

:P

there is nothing wrong with a bit of imperialism... >.> <.<

considering there is an american base on england meaning there is an american army here wot is wrong with having a song about our navy honest to god that conductor needs to get a life

I am very sorry about the typo's in my previous entry i have spent too much time on MSN messanger

May I remind you the hit that killed Hood was a lucky shot from the bismarck, and I will not, not on my watch, allow someone to make a sarcastic mockery of the men that died that day fighting fascism and upholding the morals of western civilisation and defending the world from a menace that was threatening to raise the swastika over our green land. HMS Hood was a wonderful ship and it's fortunate that it's and it's crews death was avenged by the superiority of the Royal Navy.

/me LAMENTs the death of Queen Elizabeth, Barham, Valiant, Warspite, Hood, Repulse, Prince of Wales, and all the minor combatants lost in action in WWII fighting the fascist menace.

Queen Elizabeth...

*ahem*

Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha.

Queen Elizabeth...

*ahem*

Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
The battleship was named in honour of Elizabeth Tudor.