The Ship Model Forum

RNfanDan wrote:

Werner wrote:Mr. Guest in this section is almost always Chuck (of Sacramento, Ca).

...and apparently Californian in more ways than mere residency, if Werner is correct.

That's right, vote as with the state overall as well.

Empires never are altruistic. However an empire that is ruthlessly honest in accessing the stock of good will it has abroad, other people's view of itself, and the exact area of convergence (and divergence) between its own interests and those of others, tends to do better than those which cover its own eyes with beautiful painting of the world in which every one looks up to it and think in terms of school book ideologies.

The British Empire was not altruistic by intent but expansionist by design as all Empires are. Expand or implode. There is no doubting the fact that much of this huge land mass was governed applying many of the principles and methods of the Empire of Rome and like Rome you could earn your citizenship and it is a fact that large numbers in the Empire had a paradoxical affinity to the "mother country� even those which were culturally quite different. The sub -continent was the Imperial jewel in the crown but the colonial rulers acted like lord and masters. The Empire was ruthless in its treatment of decent. The Indian Mutiny and Boar war are but two examples.
As with the fall of Rome some remnants of Empire will linger on. Whether the law givers and legacy of language will remain in 200 years time is a mute question. After all the legacy of Rome remains 1500 years later but to say the former colonial states either in Africa, Asia or else were have some kind of affinity to the mother country is a much over worked and perhaps rose tinted view of the legacy of Britain�s imperial past.
Dave Wooley

Werner wrote:Mr. Guest in this section is almost always Chuck (of Sacramento, Ca).

...and apparently Californian in more ways than mere residency, if Werner is correct.

Mr. Guest in this section is almost always Chuck (of Sacramento, Ca).

hallo prehaps im being smug but why dont u sign or join ??????? instead of being a guest then u can debate what u like but well know whos posting. just a thought youy may like to consider

Werner wrote:British Common Law would seem to be the rule in places that matter, anyway.

Perhaps it is another sign of lunatic smugness to think almost all of Europe, Russia, Japan, much of middleeast and Africa China matters less than the countries highlighted in blue.

BTW, the current state of much of the blue territory in Africa is so abysmal, and any legal system that might be said to exist there so nonfunctional, that it is altogether unclear whether these countries would continue to use this system if they ever get their act together and become someone that matters.

British Common Law would seem to be the rule in places that matter, anyway.

Let's just say that evidence suggests that there is very much less negotiability in either the particularly American, or Generally Anglo-Saxon "gifts" to the world than Anglo-Saxons in their moments of exuberance would like to think.

I think it is because we've become so insanely smug in our delusion about how highly the world thinks of us that we've been so wanton in squandering our reputation abroad. We squander our reserve of goodwill as if the reserve was vastly larger than it actually was.

Deckard wrote:
They were both probably glad to be rid of each other in '47 but the nexus was never broken. Britain was and I think still is, the first choice for Pakistani and Indian immigrants because of the familiarity, ie; it's a natural selection.

There is by default less culture barrier between any former colony and its former colonial power. Therefore you might find that whenever migration from one to the other is possible, the former colonial power always has a high probability of being the prefer destination of emigration from the former colony. Hardly does that mean the taken of colonialism itself would be treasured in the former colonies, or that the former colonial power really is really more esteemed than others in the former colony.

Werner wrote:Don't underestimate the powerful influence of the British system of laws. It is one of England's most enduring gifts to the world.

Even a place like the American Colonies, whose antipathy toward England included a proposal for German as the national language, did not hesitate to embrace and maintain the existing system of common laws.

The word "gift" has an undeserved smug connotation. Let's say no nation outside of Britain has ever elected to adopt the English legal system by choice.

Don't underestimate the powerful influence of the British system of laws. It is one of England's most enduring gifts to the world.

Even a place like the American Colonies, whose antipathy toward England included a proposal for German as the national language, did not hesitate to embrace and maintain the existing system of common laws.

Deckard wrote:You can believe what you like, I've been there and the sub-continent is very happy with a good deal of the traditions inherited from the British Raj.

They were both probably glad to be rid of each other in '47 but the nexus was never broken. Britain was and I think still is, the first choice for Pakistani and Indian immigrants because of the familiarity, ie; it's a natural selection.

I got the impression that if they were to be exploited, at least they got the biggest and the best with Britain, and they were able to profit from it in many ways as well.

As French was once the language of the English court and governing elite the Pakistan elite adopt some of the trappings of the old colonial power, English is still used in business and spoken by many of the educated. But get away from the Lahore or Islamabad into the hinterland and there is little that endears the populous to the former colonial power and few understand let alone speak English.
Dave Wooley

You can believe what you like, I've been there and the sub-continent is very happy with a good deal of the traditions inherited from the British Raj.

They were both probably glad to be rid of each other in '47 but the nexus was never broken. Britain was and I think still is, the first choice for Pakistani and Indian immigrants because of the familiarity, ie; it's a natural selection.

I got the impression that if they were to be exploited, at least they got the biggest and the best with Britain, and they were able to profit from it in many ways as well.

Deckard wrote:
An important reason why the sub-continent still hangs onto SMLE's and BREN's is proud tradition.

I absolutely do not believe they've hung onto these weapons for "tradition". We tend to be insanely self-deluded about other people's view of our "tutelage". They think a few nice things we left behind are a staggeringly meager price for the lost pride they've endured.

They might value things like Afternoon tea but only as one would value a few inadequate coins given in totally inadequate payment, rather than as a token to some fondly remembered happy old days.

Lesforan wrote:Gone,

When considering the present leadership of Pakistan as the dubious result of the democratic process, remember a miscarriage of this process also produced Hitler.

Deckard,

It strikes me as extremely ironic that a nation that was "spun off" a former British Colony would embrace such cultural ties to its former mother country. Does this sugest that in Pakistan, anti-Indian antipithy exceeds anti-Imperialist sentiment?

The present leadership in Pakistan is far from being a result of any democratic process, and Pakistan has very few ties to the colonial power other than some tenuous links with the Commonwealth. I doubt that democracy as defined by the west has ever taken root in that part of world as it's often been corrupt and been unable to really give the leadership Pakistan needs hence the present impasse.
Dave Wooley

Gone,

When considering the present leadership of Pakistan as the dubious result of the democratic process, remember a miscarriage of this process also produced Hitler.

Deckard,

It strikes me as extremely ironic that a nation that was "spun off" a former British Colony would embrace such cultural ties to its former mother country. Does this sugest that in Pakistan, anti-Indian antipithy exceeds anti-Imperialist sentiment?

Pakistan is in a very precarious position given the fact that there is a wide educational division in Pakistan society and that gulf is widening. Education, the pillar of any society is also divided. On the one hand you have an educated elite, on the other a heavy reliance on the Madrassa system were the young from deprived back grounds receive an education, al be it centred on the Koran as the state system suffers from chronic under funding and has failed to deliver any meaningful education for all its peoples. The system was encouraged by previous military rulers and has almost taken on the responsibility for basic education of many in Pakistan. The consequences of such a development are now becoming clearer. Radicalisation of the majority, which will in the not to distant future, dominate politic life in Pakistan.
Dave Wooley

Werner wrote:I don't understand why a country would use WW.II rifles when the world is awash in a sea of Kalishnikovs. I'm sure there are more AK-47s loose in Pakistan than there are hands to hold them.

An important reason why the sub-continent still hangs onto SMLE's and BREN's is proud tradition. They're tangible connections to the valued and appreciated institutions that Britain 'gave' them (for want of a better word), ie; the civil service, cricket and in this instance, a structured and disciplined military.

Another is 'Tiffen', afternoon tea.