US Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic leads school to apologise

[DieselDaisy]

Far be it from ''stamping out indigenous cultures and languages'', the British (a small British elite) usually appropriated the indigenous language, and something of the culture and ran the empire through proxy, via an indigenous larger elite. Colonialism is now seen as a much more complicated process than what Graeme implies. It it is now seen as a two-way process of 'acculturation', by which the imperial metropolis is as impacted as much as the periphery. There is also a class aspect; native elite often found themselves having more in common with the British elite than their own lower castes and allied themselves with European interlopers in order to fill a previously vacated vacuum of political and military power. (This is essentially how the British acquired India.) Britain's imperial administration was always too small anyhow to 'stamp out an indigenous culture or language'' (which would entail a huge excise of military and fiscal power). There were parts of the Raj, particularly in the princely states, which were barely impacted by the Calcutta administration. It was similar in Africa, which, to a large extent, had only recently been colonised during the late 19th century 'Scramble'. In China, Europeans only succeeded in making inroads around the marginals of, this great and sophisticated culture.

It is actually doing many of the indigenous cultures, in which there is a rich continuation of pre-colonial tradition, a great disservice to imply that their cultures were eradicated somehow by a paltry number of Europeans. In actual fact, something of the reverse happened. Britain appropriated some of the mores of colonial societies in order to justify her status as an imperial power. Moustaches for example were essential for the Victorian gentleman, essentially because, for Indians they are a sign of masculine maturity and to be clean shaving is to be, effeminate, homosexual. Other colonial exchanges include, 'bungalow', curry, tea. There were also, intellectual exchanges. Far be it from ''stamping out languages'', languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Cantonese were added to the syllabuses of Britain's universities to benefit future British administrators. Many of the big linguistic and literary translations and revelations are a product of empire, e.g. the (re)discovery of Indo-European.

During the 18th-early 19th centuries there was actually a gossipy agenda known as, ''going native''. Here you had British gentlemen marrying local elite women and basically, to all attempts and purposes, becoming completely Asiatic, altering their religion and dress codes and sometimes even becoming opponents of Britain. It is true that this practice dissipated with the spread of Victorian (Christian) morality (and various penal and sumptuary regulations), but it did not completely vanish altogether.

The only argument that can be made for 'stamping out indigenous cultures', is in the white settler colonies, America, Australasia, etc. White settlements aimed to create Neo Europes in a wilderness of perceived 'barbarity'. Natives were pushed out to the marginals of land, grazing rights disrespected and treaties broken. Further, there was little incentive for European settlers to learn indigenous languages. The problem with this argument is, it rarely is a reflection on any sort of 'British' metropolitan policy, but speaks more for the actions of colonial pioneers operating independent of Westminster. In fact, if anything, Britain did its best to curb the expansionism of its plantation colonies - witness Britain's impediments on the Boer Republics resulting in two wars!

Of course it was more complicated, you don't think I set out to summarise the entirety of the social repercussions of the British Empire in three sentences, do you? But have a look at your own paragraphs, the word you use most frequently to describe the principal beneficiaries of colonialism is "elite", both indigenous and British. If the empire managed to permit a small number of wealthy locals to profit off the back of plundering the natural resources which many more relied upon then it's hardly something to be proud of, is it? Same with the slave trade, Germany is no longer gassing Jews to death in the same way that the UK is no longer kidnapping Africans and forcing them to work for nothing, so, according to Snakes' logic why can Britain hold its head high but Germany should be ashamed of its past?

You are awarding the time period with values that either didn't exist or were in their infancy. You are discussing anti-elitism, i.e. social and political egalitarianism, correct? Britain itself was only beginning to become democratic, 1867 thereafter, and was not fully democratic until 1918. 1600 - 1840s (and until, to a certain degree, well after this time period), hierarchy was the de facto method of government, world wide. Hierarchy, class, was a recognisable cultural more, language and administrative necessity, unifying disparate cultures such as Europe including Russia (serdom was only abolished, 1861), India (i.e. the Brahmana caste system), Africa (which was mostly ruled by petty kings and chieftains), Japan (the samurai class). How else were the British expected to rule, if not by class?

In terms of Britain itself, there were great opportunities for middle and working class imperial involvement. This is particularly true from the 19th century onwards. Britain's new burgeoning middle classes supplied the bulk of officers, sailors and civic service during this period. Engineers, missionaries (e.g. Dr Livingstone), scientists and topographers all came from a lower economic rung than the aristocracy and gentry. White plantations also offered the urban working classes new opportunities for economic improvement.

About the slave trade, it was actually Britain which abolished the triangular trade. The slave trade/slavery was abolished, 1807/1834. Don't forget that the United States abolished slavery in 1865 after a very bloody war over the issue. Diplomatically and financially, Britain forced the other European powers to close down their slave markets. A Royal Navy squadron permanently patrolling West Africa, intercepting slave vessels and emancipating slaves.

Edited March 30, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

About Snakes, he has a point. I remember a German historian saying that German history is like a ''toilet that won't flush''. The Germans, as opposed to the Austrians and Japanese, have perfected 'historic guilt'. I myself have always been a bit cynical about historic guilt. I think it should only go so far, as pertaining to events within living memory. Where do you draw the line with events outside living memory? Crusades? Vikings? Romans? Should Britain receive 'compen' from the city of Rome for events as happened during Boudica's revolt?

PS

I am surprised nobody 'liked' this,

It's not about shame. It's about what it stands for.

A country where people believed they were better than any other country and better than any other race.

I just said, why I know many people in my country are not liking it. It's not necessarily my personal opinion.

Well, if Germany wasn't so foolish with Hitler, you might be able to find a patriotic German, but since they was and that whole world war happened, it seems like they're ashamed to show any national pride, and well, serves them right.

You are just envious because of this,

I thought it was one of my better Snakepit gags.

[MB.]

I can't open the link on my ipad DieselDaisy, that might be the reason.

[Snake-Pit]

Far be it from ''stamping out indigenous cultures and languages'', the British (a small British elite) usually appropriated the indigenous language, and something of the culture and ran the empire through proxy, via an indigenous larger elite. Colonialism is now seen as a much more complicated process than what Graeme implies. It it is now seen as a two-way process of 'acculturation', by which the imperial metropolis is as impacted as much as the periphery. There is also a class aspect; native elite often found themselves having more in common with the British elite than their own lower castes and allied themselves with European interlopers in order to fill a previously vacated vacuum of political and military power. (This is essentially how the British acquired India.) Britain's imperial administration was always too small anyhow to 'stamp out an indigenous culture or language'' (which would entail a huge excise of military and fiscal power). There were parts of the Raj, particularly in the princely states, which were barely impacted by the Calcutta administration. It was similar in Africa, which, to a large extent, had only recently been colonised during the late 19th century 'Scramble'. In China, Europeans only succeeded in making inroads around the marginals of, this great and sophisticated culture.

It is actually doing many of the indigenous cultures, in which there is a rich continuation of pre-colonial tradition, a great disservice to imply that their cultures were eradicated somehow by a paltry number of Europeans. In actual fact, something of the reverse happened. Britain appropriated some of the mores of colonial societies in order to justify her status as an imperial power. Moustaches for example were essential for the Victorian gentleman, essentially because, for Indians they are a sign of masculine maturity and to be clean shaving is to be, effeminate, homosexual. Other colonial exchanges include, 'bungalow', curry, tea. There were also, intellectual exchanges. Far be it from ''stamping out languages'', languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Cantonese were added to the syllabuses of Britain's universities to benefit future British administrators. Many of the big linguistic and literary translations and revelations are a product of empire, e.g. the (re)discovery of Indo-European.

During the 18th-early 19th centuries there was actually a gossipy agenda known as, ''going native''. Here you had British gentlemen marrying local elite women and basically, to all attempts and purposes, becoming completely Asiatic, altering their religion and dress codes and sometimes even becoming opponents of Britain. It is true that this practice dissipated with the spread of Victorian (Christian) morality (and various penal and sumptuary regulations), but it did not completely vanish altogether.

The only argument that can be made for 'stamping out indigenous cultures', is in the white settler colonies, America, Australasia, etc. White settlements aimed to create Neo Europes in a wilderness of perceived 'barbarity'. Natives were pushed out to the marginals of land, grazing rights disrespected and treaties broken. Further, there was little incentive for European settlers to learn indigenous languages. The problem with this argument is, it rarely is a reflection on any sort of 'British' metropolitan policy, but speaks more for the actions of colonial pioneers operating independent of Westminster. In fact, if anything, Britain did its best to curb the expansionism of its plantation colonies - witness Britain's impediments on the Boer Republics resulting in two wars!

Of course it was more complicated, you don't think I set out to summarise the entirety of the social repercussions of the British Empire in three sentences, do you? But have a look at your own paragraphs, the word you use most frequently to describe the principal beneficiaries of colonialism is "elite", both indigenous and British. If the empire managed to permit a small number of wealthy locals to profit off the back of plundering the natural resources which many more relied upon then it's hardly something to be proud of, is it? Same with the slave trade, Germany is no longer gassing Jews to death in the same way that the UK is no longer kidnapping Africans and forcing them to work for nothing, so, according to Snakes' logic why can Britain hold its head high but Germany should be ashamed of its past?

You are awarding the time period with values that either didn't exist or were in their infancy. You are discussing anti-elitism, i.e. social and political egalitarianism, correct? Britain itself was only beginning to become democratic, 1867 thereafter, and was not fully democratic until 1918. 1600 - 1840s (and until, to a certain degree, well after this time period), hierarchy was the de facto method of government, world wide. Hierarchy, class, was a recognisable cultural more, language and administrative necessity, unifying disparate cultures such as Europe including Russia (serdom was only abolished, 1861), India (i.e. the Brahmana caste system), Africa (which was mostly ruled by petty kings and chieftains), Japan (the samurai class). How else were the British expected to rule, if not by class?

In terms of Britain itself, there were great opportunities for middle and working class imperial involvement. This is particularly true from the 19th century onwards. Britain's new burgeoning middle classes supplied the bulk of officers, sailors and civic service during this period. Engineers, missionaries (e.g. Dr Livingstone), scientists and topographers all came from a lower economic rung than the aristocracy and gentry. White plantations also offered the urban working classes new opportunities for economic improvement.

About the slave trade, it was actually Britain which abolished the triangular trade. The slave trade/slavery was abolished, 1807/1834. Don't forget that the United States abolished slavery in 1865 after a very bloody war over the issue. Diplomatically and financially, Britain forced the other European powers to close down their slave markets. A Royal Navy squadron permanently patrolling West Africa, intercepting slave vessels and emancipating slaves.

It was to blow up cross continental railways anyway, WWI...

Think why, get trade.

Why does anyone do anything? Trade.

[Graeme]

Far be it from ''stamping out indigenous cultures and languages'', the British (a small British elite) usually appropriated the indigenous language, and something of the culture and ran the empire through proxy, via an indigenous larger elite. Colonialism is now seen as a much more complicated process than what Graeme implies. It it is now seen as a two-way process of 'acculturation', by which the imperial metropolis is as impacted as much as the periphery. There is also a class aspect; native elite often found themselves having more in common with the British elite than their own lower castes and allied themselves with European interlopers in order to fill a previously vacated vacuum of political and military power. (This is essentially how the British acquired India.) Britain's imperial administration was always too small anyhow to 'stamp out an indigenous culture or language'' (which would entail a huge excise of military and fiscal power). There were parts of the Raj, particularly in the princely states, which were barely impacted by the Calcutta administration. It was similar in Africa, which, to a large extent, had only recently been colonised during the late 19th century 'Scramble'. In China, Europeans only succeeded in making inroads around the marginals of, this great and sophisticated culture.

It is actually doing many of the indigenous cultures, in which there is a rich continuation of pre-colonial tradition, a great disservice to imply that their cultures were eradicated somehow by a paltry number of Europeans. In actual fact, something of the reverse happened. Britain appropriated some of the mores of colonial societies in order to justify her status as an imperial power. Moustaches for example were essential for the Victorian gentleman, essentially because, for Indians they are a sign of masculine maturity and to be clean shaving is to be, effeminate, homosexual. Other colonial exchanges include, 'bungalow', curry, tea. There were also, intellectual exchanges. Far be it from ''stamping out languages'', languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Cantonese were added to the syllabuses of Britain's universities to benefit future British administrators. Many of the big linguistic and literary translations and revelations are a product of empire, e.g. the (re)discovery of Indo-European.

During the 18th-early 19th centuries there was actually a gossipy agenda known as, ''going native''. Here you had British gentlemen marrying local elite women and basically, to all attempts and purposes, becoming completely Asiatic, altering their religion and dress codes and sometimes even becoming opponents of Britain. It is true that this practice dissipated with the spread of Victorian (Christian) morality (and various penal and sumptuary regulations), but it did not completely vanish altogether.

The only argument that can be made for 'stamping out indigenous cultures', is in the white settler colonies, America, Australasia, etc. White settlements aimed to create Neo Europes in a wilderness of perceived 'barbarity'. Natives were pushed out to the marginals of land, grazing rights disrespected and treaties broken. Further, there was little incentive for European settlers to learn indigenous languages. The problem with this argument is, it rarely is a reflection on any sort of 'British' metropolitan policy, but speaks more for the actions of colonial pioneers operating independent of Westminster. In fact, if anything, Britain did its best to curb the expansionism of its plantation colonies - witness Britain's impediments on the Boer Republics resulting in two wars!

Of course it was more complicated, you don't think I set out to summarise the entirety of the social repercussions of the British Empire in three sentences, do you? But have a look at your own paragraphs, the word you use most frequently to describe the principal beneficiaries of colonialism is "elite", both indigenous and British. If the empire managed to permit a small number of wealthy locals to profit off the back of plundering the natural resources which many more relied upon then it's hardly something to be proud of, is it? Same with the slave trade, Germany is no longer gassing Jews to death in the same way that the UK is no longer kidnapping Africans and forcing them to work for nothing, so, according to Snakes' logic why can Britain hold its head high but Germany should be ashamed of its past?

You are awarding the time period with values that either didn't exist or were in their infancy. You are discussing anti-elitism, i.e. social and political egalitarianism, correct? Britain itself was only beginning to become democratic, 1867 thereafter, and was not fully democratic until 1918. 1600 - 1840s (and until, to a certain degree, well after this time period), hierarchy was the de facto method of government, world wide. Hierarchy, class, was a recognisable cultural more, language and administrative necessity, unifying disparate cultures such as Europe including Russia (serdom was only abolished, 1861), India (i.e. the Brahmana caste system), Africa (which was mostly ruled by petty kings and chieftains), Japan (the samurai class). How else were the British expected to rule, if not by class?

In terms of Britain itself, there were great opportunities for middle and working class imperial involvement. This is particularly true from the 19th century onwards. Britain's new burgeoning middle classes supplied the bulk of officers, sailors and civic service during this period. Engineers, missionaries (e.g. Dr Livingstone), scientists and topographers all came from a lower economic rung than the aristocracy and gentry. White plantations also offered the urban working classes new opportunities for economic improvement.

About the slave trade, it was actually Britain which abolished the triangular trade. The slave trade/slavery was abolished, 1807/1834. Don't forget that the United States abolished slavery in 1865 after a very bloody war over the issue. Diplomatically and financially, Britain forced the other European powers to close down their slave markets. A Royal Navy squadron permanently patrolling West Africa, intercepting slave vessels and emancipating slaves.

Snakes is expecting to judge modern-day Germany on the Eugenics-driven agenda which led to Naziism and the Holocaust. On that basis, why is it any different to judge modern-day Britain on the slave trade it participated in, the class structures it proliferated, the wealth it accrued, the authority it exerted through nothing but military might, the wars it fought, the other wars it financed... etc. etc? Why does the "values of the time" argument apply to the UK and not to Germany? If Germany must be ashamed of Hitler's actions ad infinitum, then why would the UK not suffer the same for the civilian casualties of the Iraq war, the Troubles, the consequences of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the famines which occurred under the Raj, or the clearances in Scotland and the potato famine in Ireland? Are these causes for the UK to hold its head high?

[DieselDaisy]

Snakes is expecting to judge modern-day Germany on the Eugenics-driven agenda which led to Naziism and the Holocaust. On that basis, why is it any different to judge modern-day Britain on the slave trade it participated in, the class structures it proliferated, the wealth it accrued, the authority it exerted through nothing but military might, the wars it fought, the other wars it financed... etc. etc? Why does the "values of the time" argument apply to the UK and not to Germany? If Germany must be ashamed of Hitler's actions ad infinitum, then why would the UK not suffer the same for the civilian casualties of the Iraq war, the Troubles, the consequences of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the famines which occurred under the Raj, or the clearances in Scotland and the potato famine in Ireland? Are these causes for the UK to hold its head high?

I do not really agree with Snakes haha. Well, I think he has a point in the sense that there is this 'shame' attitude in Germany but I certainly do not think Germans should operate like this. I do not believe in any historic shame, apology thing. It is all bollocks. Tony Blairey Guardian reading bollocks. It is all vacuous anyway: ''we apologise''; ''we will never forget''; ''here is a museum dedicated to the slave trade....enjoy...make sure you check out the souvenir shop on the way out''.

I would agree in the sense that with the Nazis there are still people alive who committed war crimes against humanity and there is a sort of, reconciliation period, but even with Germany the way as it is now, 2015? Just won the World Cup. War's over. The world War Two generation are passing as we speak so even my first argument there is gradually becoming redundant. Heck, I am learning Japanese and these are people who do not give a shit about historic guilt hence that infamous Shinto shrine commemorating, perceived, 'war criminals'. And I say that as someone guilty as any Englishman of doing his best Basil ''don't mention the war'' routine.

[AxlisOld]

Maybe because assholes keep throwing Nazism into modern day Germans' faces.

[DieselDaisy]

Maybe because assholes keep throwing Nazism into modern day Germans' faces.

But the thing is, Germans do a lot of that themselves. Obviously the historic debates will continue for as long as the world does but outside of the historical profession, I think it is time to draw a bit of a line under it. I also think it is a bit, twentieth century centric, in the sense that it is like German history begins in 1914 or 1933 with the rise of Hitler. Where is Luther, Old Fritz, Bismarck? Where is Beethoven or Goethe? It is almost as if German history does not (speaking Anglocentrically) possess ''a Tudors'' or ''a Stuarts'', a bit of ''bedroom shenanigans'', ''a few heads being lopped off''. There is nothing remotely 'romantic' about twentieth century German history, that inspires the mind and gets kids interested.

[Snake-Pit]

Maybe because assholes keep throwing Nazism into modern day Germans' faces.

Lest we forget.

Europe's always had assholes try and fuck with it.

Napoleon wanted us all speaking French, Hitler wanted us speaking German...

Not since Rome has anyone done that.

Now I guess for neutrality, the head of it's in Brussels.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Snake-Pit

[AxlisOld]

See how if we pick and choose we can sway arguments by oversimplifying? Why are you saying Napolean and Hitler were assholes for wanting everyone to speak their language in Europe, when the "universal" European language is English?

[DieselDaisy]

In actual fact it is a bunch of bollocks about Hitler and Napoleon wanting ''everyone to speak their respective languages''. Nazi ideology prioritised 'Aryan' countries (France, Scandinavia, Low Countries) which broadly maintained their own local administration, culture (provided it did not contain anti-German sentiment) - and yes, language. Great Britain would have belonged to this group. If Britain had been conquered, the British language would have continued. British local administration would have continued (as it did on the Channel Islands). Probably the Nazis would have propped up Edward VIII as a puppet ruler. There would have been some sort of Westminster Parliament, consisting of a rump of appeasers and British fascists. Eastern Europe was different however. There a policy of Germanisation was, partially, enacted with varying outcomes. In brief, Hitler saw the east as providing his Third Reich with lebensraum ('living space'). This entailed liquidation and cultural annihilation.

It is complicated with Napoleon due to the fact that, for around two hundred years French had been the lingua franca already, regardless of Bonaparte. You were basically a uncouth pleb if you did not speak French between 1500-1815. Aristocracies of the various countries already conversed in French more than their vernacular languages - a fact satirised by Tolstoy in War in Peace.

When did Napoleon conquer Portugal and Spain? Has the writer of this never heard of the Peninsular War? And Poland had already ceased to exist before Napoleon; it had been liquidated in a serious of land grabs by Austria, Prussia and Russia in the late 18th century. Napoleon actually created a Polish state (granted, not the 'Poland' which nationalists desired), the Grand Duchy of Warsaw!

God, there is some terrible history on the net. I am literally in shock.

[SoulMonster]

Not since Rome has anyone done that.

Except you had Anglo-Saxons actually succeeding at making you speak what is called Old English (which morphed into modern English) AFTER the Roman period, Picts and Welsh etc who tried to make you speak various British languages and dialects (again, since you spoke these languages before the Anglo-Saxon period), and then Vikings (2-300 years later) trying to make you speak Norse (which was somewhat different from the Old English you at that time spoke).

Edited March 31, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Snake-Pit]

See how if we pick and choose we can sway arguments by oversimplifying? Why are you saying Napolean and Hitler were assholes for wanting everyone to speak their language in Europe, when the "universal" European language is English?

Because they both had delusions of grandeur that they saw themselves as Anti Christs and thought they were greater than their power by getting all Voodoo and mass murdery about it.

It was the defeat of both of these two that both times liberated Europe, and guess what/I'm from Europe. Flying to France, Germany, Holland, all 1 hour away, not far/just there. That's why they're arseholes, they messed with Europe and got their arses handed to them on a plate. That's why I personally feel proud of history in Europe and being European too, at the same time; So I, as I started off saying, have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to that picture and European history. *That picture, some Nazi salut with a quote about how Europe should feel ashamed... I am European! Don't mess with Europe! That picture reminds me it was liberated... Again. Source of pride and what?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Snake-Pit

[AxlisOld]

You said England has nothing to be ashamed of historically. You just can't grasp any point that isn't your own.

[Snake-Pit]

You said England has nothing to be ashamed of historically. You just can't grasp any point that isn't your own.

Well, we did make amends for the slave trade.

It is said, the United States freed the slaves and compensated their old slave owners for their loss, and the UK did one better and did not.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Snake-Pit

[AxlisOld]

And Germany didn't pay for, or apologize for, WW2? You have no leg to stand on here with what you just said. Britain did some fucked up shot then, but it's cool because they apologized. Germany paid OUT THE ASS for WW2 and officially apologized, but fuck them, they were foolish.

I don't know why I bother arguing with you.

[Snake-Pit]

And Germany didn't pay for, or apologize for, WW2? You have no leg to stand on here with what you just said. Britain did some fucked up shot then, but it's cool because they apologized. Germany paid OUT THE ASS for WW2 and officially apologized, but fuck them, they were foolish.

I don't know why I bother arguing with you.

Because I have this hold over you?

I don't know, I say one thing, the right thing, and yet you choose to forget about Germany and sweep it all under the rug.

What's so special about Germany?

[AxlisOld]

I'm not forgetting about anything you jackass, you are. Youre doing the 'Merican Pride stereotype but for Britain. I'm acknowledging that Germany fucked up, you insist on simplifying history to suit your opinion.

[MB.]

Just because the allied forces were the good guys, doesn't mean they never did stuff in WWII to be ashamed off.

Good example is the bombing of Dresden.

Still it's not about the picture at all. It's more what it represented for many people. A country who thought it was better than any other country. A 'race' who was brainwashed in believing it was better than any other race. A pride which causes a horrible war. (It's more complicated ofcourse, but the overall view basicly)

I know, that's why many (older) people in my country are not liking the pledge all that much. National pride used to be something to distrust or fear, cause too much of it, could lead to horrible things. That's how my parents were raised and that's how I was raised. I was raised by parents born in and just after WWII, very aware of the war and what happened.

Time is changing, the war has less influence in our lives and on younger generations.

Edited April 1, 2015 by MB.

[Snake-Pit]

[Snake-Pit]

You said England has nothing to be ashamed of historically. You just can't grasp any point that isn't your own.

England's cool, but even Canada's got dirty laundry, I mean, who doesn't?

[SoulMonster]

You said England has nothing to be ashamed of historically. You just can't grasp any point that isn't your own.

England's cool, but even Canada's got dirty laundry, I mean, who doesn't?

Vanuatu?