How is British history taught in schools?

[callippo]

the 'cultural dominance' claim when somebody wants to buy a Mcdonald's or a pair of jeans, is especially spurious.

 

'culutral dominance' is what the Soviet Union did. Invading countries and establishing military bases. Changing the entire education and wider system generally so that people were encouraged to have a 'Russia day' of the week, where everyone was supposed to speak only Russian and eat Russian-style dishes to eat. This was compulsory. If you didn't do this sort of stuff, you wouldn't be admitted to the Communist party and you would have no chance of getting a decent job. It wasn't like buying a coffee in Starbucks at all. That really WAS 'imperialism'. And yet, they had the sheer nerve, to call themselves 'anti-imperialist'.

[mjw47]

what they did was invade a foreign country from a previous base, usurp it and exploit it as a bigger tax base than they had before. Of course it was imperialism just like the subsequent Danish and other invasions were. If the USA had invaded Iraq, annexed it, and decided to replace Washington DC with Baghdad as its capital which is basically what William the Conqueror did, you'd be the first one to cry imperialist.

 

No it wasn't imperialism. In order for it to have been so the Angles & Saxons in this country would have to be under the control of Superiors back in Germany & be merely administrating, controlling & sending taxes back to their home base.

They weren't doing that, it was occupation of a country, nothing more.

 

The Empires of Rome, France & Britain were controlled from Rome, Paris & London respectively. Administrators were installed in the capitols of all occupied territories & taxes & merchandise exported back to the country of the occupying power. That's Imperalism.

[callippo]

so you are saying that invasion and annexation is not imperialism then. Maybe we have different ideas, about what totalitarianism actually represents. You are saying, that only when it is like a satellite contolled from afar, then it qualifies as an empire. Interesting. I would have thought that military invasion, annexation, and imposition of REAL cultural dominance, whether it is controlled from afar or not, is an absolute hallmark of imperialism. Somebody buying a Mcdonalds burger or a Starbucks coffee, or a pair of jeans, is not imperialism. Forcing everybody to eat one, or wear one, every day would be, though.

[mjw47]

do you have a link for that?

 

as usual, they just make stuff up to suit the contemporary left 'agenda' and just hope that nobody will challenge them on the facts. Churchill wasn't even in the Conservative party in 1923 but stood as a Liberal in the election the previous year, and lost in Dundee. He had very little influence in the government at all, in 1923. He wasn't even an MP, never mind a Minister. And yet you are trying to make out that he had 'influence'.

 

the kind of nonsense, where people define that '21st century imperialism' is whatever the USA does, extends to the same individual's assessement of somebody like Winston Churchill's career. They just make stuff up to suit.

 

When anyone tells you something that you don't like do you make a habit of telling them they're making it up?

When you were a child did you used to stand with your fingers in your ears shouting la la la la whenever you were told something you didn't wish to hear? Do you still do it?

Also, are you that incredibly lazy that you want everything doing for you?

Look it up yourself.

Winston Churchill took at least one bribe & was accused of taking others. As for what party he was in what the hell does it matter?

I do not support any political party, with a few honourable exceptions they are all as bad as each other.

Are you aware that Mrs Thatcher was corrupt also? Whilst Prime Minister of this country she signed the biggest arms deal ever negotiated by the UK. The deal was with Saudi Arabia & worth £468 billion. As part of the deal Mark Thatcher received £20 million as a consultancy fee.

Please explain what Mark ' the convicted criminal ' Thatcher brought to the conference table to justify that fee.

 

---------- Post added 08-05-2013 at 21:09 ----------

 

so you are saying that invasion and annexation is not imperialism then. Maybe we have different ideas, about what totalitarianism actually represents. You are saying, that only when it is like a satellite contolled from afar, then it qualifies as an empire. Interesting. I would have thought that military invasion, annexation, and imposition of REAL cultural dominance, whether it is controlled from afar or not, is an absolute hallmark of imperialism. Somebody buying a Mcdonalds burger or a Starbucks coffee, or a pair of jeans, is not imperialism. Forcing everybody to eat one, or wear one, every day would be, though.

 

Not if it doesn't involve placing country 'A' under the dominance of country 'B'.

Imperialism is about extending a country's power & influence to another separate country by means of colonization and/or military force. If invaders simply take possession of a country & have no outside control exerted over them, nor exerted by them, then they are not part of an Empire.

 

For instance, the European colonists in north America were part of an Empire up until the conclusion of the American War of Independence. Once they had won they ceased to be part of an Empire & became an independent country. At that time they exerted virtually no influence over anyone.

Times change, they are now an Empire although they dispute the description.

 

America exerts enormous power over other country's, it may not fly it's flag over them but it can tell them what to do & expect to be obeyed. That's an Empire.

[callippo]

Winston Churchill took at least one bribe & was accused of taking others. As for what party he was in what the hell does it matter?

 

 

.

 

it matters quite a lot, if you are unlike Winston Churchill, but Max Hastings was, a proper journalist and an editor of national newspaper. You know that they can sue the pants off you in a proper liberal democracy - for libel.

 

For instance, the European colonists in north America were part of an Empire up until the conclusion of the American War of Independence. Once they had won they ceased to be part of an Empire & became an independent country. At that time they exerted virtually no influence over anyone.

 

is that a joke? Forget about the Native Americans. What about the Canadians, and Mexicans. Do you think the power of the emerging USA had no effect or 'influence' on them?

 

Imperialism is about extending a country's power & influence to another separate country by means of colonization and/or military force.

 

I rest my case. That is exactly what the United States, Canada, and Mexico did or at least tried to do, not to mention just about all the other countries in that particular hemisphere. Why are you singling out the USA? Is it because they are a bigger and more obvious target?

[mjw47]

it matters quite a lot, if you are unlike Winston Churchill, but Max Hastings was, a proper journalist and an editor of national newspaper. You know that they can sue the pants off you in a proper liberal democracy - for libel.

 

For instance, the European colonists in north America were part of an Empire up until the conclusion of the American War of Independence. Once they had won they ceased to be part of an Empire & became an independent country. At that time they exerted virtually no influence over anyone.

 

is that a joke? Forget about the Native Americans. What about the Canadians, and Mexicans. Do you think the power of the emerging USA had no effect or 'influence' on them?

 

Imperialism is about extending a country's power & influence to another separate country by means of colonization and/or military force.

 

I rest my case. That is exactly what the United States, Canada, and Mexico did or at least tried to do, not to mention just about all the other countries in that particular hemisphere. Why are you singling out the USA? Is it because they are a bigger and more obvious target?

 

Callipo. You appear to have lost the plot here. What's all this crap about 'you'd be the first one to cry Imperialist' 'singling out the USA'?

 

You appear to be under some misguided impression that I am anti USA.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Whilst I don't agree with the principle of Empires in general, lets face it, it's robbery with violence, whichever way you choose to look at it, I have little problem with the US.

 

Empires happen, they are the natural progression of human greed. To rail against Empires would be like objecting to the sun coming up or the tide coming in.

 

As Empires go, the USA has been one of the most decent. Not saying a lot given the countless deaths of innocent people caused by all Empires, but still in the long run, taking it all into consideration, they are definitely the best of a bad lot .

 

Churchill said that the US would always do the right thing 'after it had tried everything else'.

And he was right, they do. It's not a bad reputation. Of course the old barsteward was biased in that he was Anglo-American himself.

[Harleyman]

Callipo. You appear to have lost the plot here. What's all this crap about 'you'd be the first one to cry Imperialist' 'singling out the USA'?

 

You appear to be under some misguided impression that I am anti USA.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Whilst I don't agree with the principle of Empires in general, lets face it, it's robbery with violence, whichever way you choose to look at it, I have little problem with the US.

 

Empires happen, they are the natural progression of human greed. To rail against Empires would be like objecting to the sun coming up or the tide coming in.

 

As Empires go, the USA has been one of the most decent. Not saying a lot given the countless deaths of innocent people caused by all Empires, but still in the long run, taking it all into consideration, they are definitely the best of a bad lot .

 

Churchill said that the US would always do the right thing 'after it had tried everything else'.

And he was right, they do. It's not a bad reputation. Of course the old barsteward was biased in that he was Anglo-American himself.

 

Just how many territories outside of North America does the US rule or administer?

 

Dont mention Hawaii. That dont count

 

Maybe Guam, Puerta Rico and the US Virgin islands. That does not make it an Empire

 

You are confusing the spread of American cultural influence with Empire

 

 

Back to school !

[syne]

Interesting discussion. Lists in history are limited for many reasons. A list of dates/events is what many of us recognise as being history. It isn't. It's just lists that somebody compiled. The list can never be complete. It's most likely biased.

.

 

I've never thought about that before, I suppose that history is technically everything before 'now' and you have a really limited time in which to study it.

Even if you devoted your whole life to it (say 80 years) you could only scratch the surface of a billion years of history.

 

So maybe it might be a good idea to have more than one type history taught. the history of our lands inc pre-british british history could be treated as a seperate subject.

[Hillpig]

That's an incredibly simplistic view of Haigs career.

 

Yes it is, my grandfather fought throughout the 1st war and felt Haig was unfairly treated by the left wing press after the war. He was a very good man fihting a vile war. He did the best he could, and won.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 01:38 ----------

 

Just how many territories outside of North America does the US rule or administer?

 

Dont mention Hawaii. That dont count

 

Maybe Guam, Puerta Rico and the US Virgin islands. That does not make it an Empire

 

You are confusing the spread of American cultural influence with Empire

 

 

Back to school !

 

I tend to agree with you but the level of that influence and the way it has been exercised is tantamount to empire building.

 

The American attitude to empire is contradictory, it could not wait to see the British Empire end. When it did it seemed to have inherited the world but didnt know waht to do with it.

 

Unable to win a war without British assistance and terrible administrators once they did take over a country, Iraq for instance, the influence you mention has been huge but is fast waning.

 

The British, from this tiny rock on the edge of Europe bestrode the world like a colossus for three hundred years, and wasted thier treasure and best men in a real fight for freedom. The Americans with all thier natural advantsges and huge population will fade into increasing isolation and paranoid sentimentality by the end of this century. Bankrupt, armed to the teeth and thick as planks, but with, no doubt, the false confidence that only Hollywood can sustain.

[mjw47]

Just how many territories outside of North America does the US rule or administer?

 

Dont mention Hawaii. That dont count

 

Maybe Guam, Puerta Rico and the US Virgin islands. That does not make it an Empire

 

You are confusing the spread of American cultural influence with Empire

 

 

Back to school !

 

Oh dear me, they've done a mental adjustment job on you haven't they?

 

Empires are as much about influence & political power as territory.

 

America effectively rules a huge part of the world by applying political pressure, it also has had, & still does to an extent 'puppet' governments installed in country's of interest.

 

If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck?

 

Back to school for you