Job Discussion Forums

[Will.]

follow on to Zaneth
funny thing that money and investments.
The land on which the houses of parliament stand is owned by one person, said person holding a 999 (yes 999) year leasehold agreement with the government.
Long term investment is quite popular here, 'for the future' really means that.
I read that if the investors of Britain called in all their money from their various worldwide investments, Banks etc. there would be serious ructions all over the place, mainly as most people do not realise just who the shareholders of their national institutions are and that this buy out happened many years ago.

[gugelhupf]

[Dr.J]

I don't really understand pride and guilt connected to your country. I understand responsibility, but to actually feel good or bad just because a person from your country (but otherwise entirely unrelated to you) did something good or bad...I don't get it.

[Bindair Dundat]

[Ludwig]

[zaneth]

shmooj, Ludwig, could you elaborate a bit on this?

[Teacher in Rome]

I'm neither Shmooj nor Ludwig (!), but it seems to me that the British Empire left a lot of its systems and institutions behind. Educational systems, the judiciary, rail networks, the Civil Service and so on all owe a lot to being introduced by the British Empire. In some cases, they have been left untouched and they are run largely as they were originally run.

Many people still remember British rule - travelling in India I heard a lot of comments about "the Raj", and Hong Kong had a British governor until very recently. Even though his "power" was kept in check by a Legislative Council, he still represented Britain. (Ludwig is bound to have more updated info than me on this.)

I've travelled quite a bit through ex-colonies, and although I'm not particularly proud / guilty either way of Britain's past (which has not always been particularly altruistic), there is no doubting that a lot of people see direct British rule as having been positive.

It has also meant that a lot of Brits have a positive outlook on the rest of the world - we're used to travelling and making our fortunes overseas. Well, maybe not fortunes, but at least a living!

[Bindair Dundat]

[shmooj]

For better or worse, I'm shmooj.

I work for the British Council, an organisation set up to actively promote British interests overseas and generate interest in particular in trade, education and industry in the UK.

I've read quite a lot about the British Empire and in particular how it all started up and was justified. It seems to me on reflection that, broadly speaking, these are the exact same criteria. Note also that the Council was set up before the Empire started to crumble and therefore has its genesis in the tween-wars era of English pride.

I also believe that the British Council does a lot of very valuable work worldwide and, I think anyone balanced would have to admit, that the British Empire also had benefits even for those under British rule. Note before you flame me that I'm not saying it was all justified but rather that, even so, there were some benefits.

India is a great example of this. It now has major industrial strength due very much to the British uniting the country under central rule and setting up infrastructure such as roads, railways and trade. Nehru and others, who notably were very Anglicised in their outlooks, did a great job in harnessing these benefits for the good of the Indian people. If they hadn't been there at all, India would be a very different economic beast.

My reference to the Empire still having a hold on people is illustrated by one member of the Korean staff here who recently was honoured by the Queen. The guy even had his plastic name tag altered to reflect this honour despite there being others in the office holding similar or greater honours who do not flaunt them. It means absolutely nothing to anyone the minute he steps out the door to go home but here in this little bit of Empire, he has been elevated.

[Communist Smurf]

[Stephen Jones]

The British really did very little in India. Apart from being responsible for two famines (1879 & 1942-1943). They simply appointed a small collection of proxies to run the show for them.

Imports ruined India's village textile industry. It was only after independence that mass industrialization started.

Countries such as Thailand were never colonized, but they are still a lot better off.

[zaneth]

I'm not an expert on India or the British Empire, but it seems to me that just the language alone is evidence that the Empire had more than a passing effect on India. Was it just that India needed a commom language? Wouldn't Hindi have worked?

[Ailian]

[shmooj]

[Roger]

[quote="mjed9"]To be honest I no longer care. I am glad I am British (compared to being any other Western English - speaking nationality) but the thought of being European doesn't bother me. I am European. There is no doubt. Europe is a fantastic place, with many fine people (apart from the Germans obviously).

I had heard that Concentration Camps were being thought of in the UK at the same time as Nazi Germany but where did you read that it was a concept originally created by the British government? Reveal your sourc

I have to say, Europe is a fantastic place INCLUDING GERMANY, not esxcluding it. What reason might anyone have for excluding Germany from Europe??? That's politically-insensitive and plain wrong! Germany is in the heart of that continent and the biggest and most signifcant one at that!

As for the concentration camps, they were brought to the RSA from Britain during or before the Boer War. The Brits held Boers in those camps.