On Mon 6 Jan at 10:37am Buzzard wrote:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
(Burns)
Sometimes, seeing ourselves as others see us can be uncomfortable. Here is an article from the Times of India (see link).
Karma calling? Country that used divide-and-rule split over Brexit
... Where once Great Britain saw itself as a modernising force for the world — a perception that also underpinned British colonialism in centuries past — today it stands a divided nation where parochial forces have gained the upper hand. Which brings into question the credibility of British soft power... Britain had deployed these soft a ssets brilliantly. But with Brexit, all of this risks boomeranging on the UK. For, as soon as British openness started being seen as a liability by a considerable section of the British population given a slowing economy and changing British demographics, racism and nativism reared their ugly heads. Fears began rising that the white British population would soon be overwhelmed by people of colour and outsiders. It is these regressive forces that are dividing Britain today and undermining its position as a cultural powerhouse.
Perhaps it is all karma. After all, Britain for centuries had divided people on the basis of ethnicity, religion and sects to profit from it... with British openness, fairness and multiculturalism now undermined by Brexit, the pull of the UK as a destination for talent is also likely to fade. Britain risks becoming an old, sclerotic nation with little real influence in the world. Many would say it serves them right.
I expect somebody will reply with a variation on "we won, get over it". Which kind of makes the point.
Check it out here »
On Mon 6 Jan at 11:10am Tom Pain wrote:
Yes, the voice of experience speaking. The multicultural sub continent had to be split in two to keep the Hindus and Moslems from each other's throats. It seems tensions are mounting again as each side is investing heavily in arms. The same power is working on them as us,it has no nationality, I think it's just plain greed in powerful hands.
On Mon 6 Jan at 2:21pm Nevillman wrote:
Insightful analysis. Don't agree with the karma bit. We can only hope that greatly reduced world influence does not lead to seriously declining living standards.
No idea what Tom is trying to say or it's relevance to the original post.
On Mon 6 Jan at 8:57pm Tom Pain wrote:
Having read the article again I'm surprised that anyone could see any value in such a contradictory and sloppy piece of journalism. It relies on appealing to a certain political audience that will uncritically enjoy hearing their opinions expressed without having to think about them. "Britain" did not conquer India; the British East India Company did. It was a business operation carried out by a corporation. India was ruled by a privately owned company in the beginning and boy did they make a fortune for themselves. In Victorian times it became part of the British empire. They did modernise the country to facilitate the plundering and we're very open to receiving it! They were very racist parochial and nativist in their treatment of the natives which is no surprise given that they were descendants of the Normans who had previously conquered Britain and butchered a lot of the inhabitants. I don't think there was much difference in the lot of Britain's poor in Dickensian times than that of their Indian counterparts. In short the elite of this country have invested their illl gotten gains in the countries they previously looted now their soft power or money rules the world and they are re looting.All the blame is now loaded on the people who never benefitted from the pillage under the title of white privilege and the perpetrators walk Scot free as global philanthropists.
On Tue 7 Jan at 9:09am Nevillman wrote:
Tom. You seem to be using your strange views about India to attack the piece about Brexit because it appeared in an Indian newspaper. It is you who have not thought about the views expressed in the article. The article says that people voted Brexit because they were frightened by the immigration that their open approach had lead to. These were forces of reaction that will have implications for our future role in the world which the writer clearly thinks will not be good in terms of our global influence and economy.
I would prefer to read your views on that here. I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of colonialism for the colonial power and colony somewhere else on another occasion.
On Tue 7 Jan at 10:47am Tom Pain wrote:
Please forgive me for not taking your preferences into consideration, I really should have foreseen your interpretation of the article and replied with that in view. Perhaps you should take over as moderator, then you can preface any comments with your preference as to how they should be interpreted and replied to. I made my comments on the article from what was presented on the forum which to my mind was an example of the fact free journalism so prevalent these days. I didn't follow the link because what was presented was such biased,unthinking and prejudiced, rubbish, in short, propaganda of the crudest kind; as anyone with the facility of critical thinking could see.
On Tue 7 Jan at 12:47pm Nevillman wrote:
What do you think the article says Tom? Your comments above seem to me to have no relevance to it. Where is the contradiction and sloppiness you refer to? What is wrong with my interpretation of the article? What is the propaganda you refer to.
Please don't respond with another personal attack. Try understanding and responding to issues raised.
On Tue 7 Jan at 5:04pm Buzzard wrote:
I don't completely disagree with Tom Pain's analysis of Britain's occupation of India, but the point of posting the article was to highlight the effect of Brexit and its associated xenophobia on Britain's global reputation today. I think Tom should ask who the 'elites' really are though - much of this badness is actually coming from super-rich far right media barons (elites surely) who have effectively colonised British culture and used their 'soft power' to destroy the tolerant, multicultural Britain that didn't suit their purposes.
On Tue 7 Jan at 8:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
Yes of course the media barons are implicated, but whether or not they are far right is another matter. Murdoch had a bust of Lenin on his mantelpiece and was known as Red Rupert at university! But really I can't tell the difference between right and left anymore. The plutocrat Soros is called left wing. The robber baron,oil baron ,you name it baron Rockefeller family support communism. Top capitalist bankers financed the Russian revolution! At the top left and right are just the same power mad multi generational families and clans. Look at the people behind the Rio earth summit where they unveiled agenda 21 ~ all bankers. Then look at the 2008 economic collapse and all the scandals like the l.i.b.o.r. rate fiddle and thousands more too numerous to name. Do you trust those people when they talk about redistribution of wealth? They talk openly of world government, openly and people think it's just a conspiracy theory,what can I say. I know one thing that's a conspiracy theory ~ brexit xenophobia and racism. On my merry way hither and yon I see people of every colour talking to each other all over the place, no race wars, no bodies hanging from lamp posts in the high street. If they keep talking it up on t.v.or in the papers you will though ~ that's how it's done. One glaring contradiction in the article ,nev is that when Britain was a world leader it was not multicultural or tolerant it was racist and all those other things and now brexit hasn't even happened and we're already losing our reputation for being what we never were!! I can't get my head round it. Having said that, I believe that the British people are among the least racist in the world,the empire was an elite construction,which benefited only themselves and their toadies. Finis.
On Wed 8 Jan at 7:37pm Tipex wrote:
Could you 3 get a room?
On Thu 9 Jan at 10:26am Tom Pain wrote:
A very nice man in a white coat offered us one but something in his manner inspired an unpleasant conspiracy theory in me and I declined.
On Thu 9 Jan at 6:25pm Lopmeister wrote:
It’s not Left and Right, Red and Blue - it’s haves and have nots - global capitalism and it’s CEOs, shareholders and elitist directors with their offshore banking and tax shirking - against those using food banks, struggling to keep a roof over their heads, no job prospects, sick relatives to care for, debts, bills to pay.
We choose a side to support - and as the latter is “but for the grace of God” I shall hurl my dung at the profiteering, work shy captains of industry that stuff their own pockets at the expense of the other 95% of society
On Fri 10 Jan at 9:29pm Basil wrote:
Buzzard, whatever makes you think a project backed by the City and the banks, one in which almost every senior figure has been involved in some way with Goldman Sachs and JR Morgan, represents 'progress' and 'internationalism'? What the EU has done is taken idealism and taken it down a neo-liberal path.
On Sat 11 Jan at 8:19am Nevillman wrote:
The EU is not neo liberal basil. One of the main arguments leavers give for leaving is to avoid all the regulation that it imposes on business. I'm not going to list some of the regulations they have introduced but they cover employment law, consumer law and business law. We will be considerably more neo liberal after we leave.