David Swindle is the associate editor of PJ Media. He writes and edits articles and blog posts on politics, news, culture, religion, and entertainment. He edits the PJ Lifestyle section and the PJ columnists. Contact him at DaveSwindlePJM @ Gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DaveSwindle.
He has worked full-time as a writer, editor, blogger, and New Media troublemaker since 2009, at PJ Media since 2011. He graduated with a degree in English (creative writing emphasis) and political science from Ball State University in 2006. Previously he's also worked as a freelance writer for The Indianapolis Star and the film critic for WTHR.com. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy Maura.
One question:
The American revolutionaries were not progressive???
What does that have anything to do with the video? Stay on topic.
They were slave-owning racists, Liberal. Thought you knew that.
I know you are being sarcastic but for those (liberal lurkers) who might not pick up that slavery was protected in all 13 colonies by the Crown and abolition was one of the reasons why many supported the Revolution. It should be noted that more than half of the original colonies banned slavery soon after Independence with at least three (Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) banning it before the Treat of Paris.
Vermont — not a colony obviously — ended it in 1777.
Certainly not in the degraded, semi-coherent sense the word “progressive” has acquired in modern political parlance, no.
Nice bit of propaganda, I mean public relations.
It was the British Empire that forced opium addiction upon the Chinese people.
Uh, no. Opium addiction was already old in China. British merchants imported large quantities of it at a low price, and the British government stepped in to make sure that the Chinese government would not block free trade. That’s a bit more subtle of an explanation.
Wait . . . what?
The British did not interfere with nation building . . . except to impose their morality?
Huh?!?!?!?!
The greatest successes of the British Empire are where they ruled with a heavy hand, imposing their values to build nations, and the greatest failures of the British Empire are where they accepted leaving local values intact for the sake of expedience and control, particularly in Islamist areas and where they came to terms with the Afrikaaners, or allowed Cecil Rhodes to import and impose Afrikaaner racism.
There is a great moral case for the British Empire.
It is not based on any PC denial of any element of cultural, moral, or political superiority.
Among the greatest gifts spread by the British Empire are:
1.) the English language;
2.) the Anglican Church and its Book of Common Prayer, as well as dissenting Protestant religions;
3.) a system of government whereby the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary are separated, whether in a republican or parliamentary system;
4.) a system of government which respects the rule of law;
5.) a system of government which respects and encourages property be held in private hands;
6.) a system of commerce which protects the free flow of goods and capital across the oceans of the world;
7.) a secure and stable monetary system which was backed by precious metals;
8.) a belief that the individual holding secure political and civil rights was superior to the “divine right of kings.”
As the President’s Kenyan half brother, Mr. George Obama, has recently pointed out, we really see the true colors of various parts of the ex-Empire in what happened after decolonization. Some areas prospered: Israel, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong are some examples. Some areas have made a mess. There are many in Africa.
Missing from the video is the truism that the Brits ruled on the principal of “divide and conquer”. Muslim vs. Hindu vs. Sikh in SW Asia; Muslim vs. Jew in the former Ottoman areas acquired in 1918 (Israel, Trans-Jordan etc), Native Indian vs. Native Indian vs. French in North America, Chinese vs. Malay in SE Asia, Tribe vs. Tribe vs. Boer in Southern Africa, etc. My list is necessarily incomplete. Those who settled in North America, Australia and New Zealand were mostly the outcasts: transported convicts, bankcrupts, indentured servants, bastard sons and daughters without name or inheritance, poor Welsh, Irish, English and Scots determined to make good, Catholics and Jews, who were given civil rights in the 17th and 18th century colonies but not in England. If one conformed, there was no reason to abandon civilization and go to a place where the brown and black skinned inhabitants weren’t God fearing, i.e. Church of England christians. And England’s unique Industrial Revolution provided an economic incentive for the expansion of Empire in the 18th century.
It was the Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock who pointed out that the Spanish, French and Portugese tried to build empire by making the subject population into Roman Catholics. The English succeeded becacuse they merely learned from them how to make and drink tea, and taught them to play cricket. What a pity that Americans (and by and large Canadians) do not play this Commonwealth wide sport.
We do – it’s called baseball.
the Anglican Church and its Book of Common Prayer, as well as dissenting Protestant religions?
The social contract, majority rule, monetarism,market economy philosophy, defense of property right, were born in thr School of Salamanca. Mainly jesuist
Doesn’t matter – Brits are the ones who spread it.
more gifts from Bitish.
“In 1943, some 3 million brown-skinned subjects of the Raj died in the Bengal famine, one of history’s worst. Mukerjee delves into official documents and oral accounts of survivors to paint a horrifying portrait of how Churchill, as part of the Western war effort, ordered the diversion of food from starving Indians to already well-supplied British soldiers and stockpiles in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, including Greece and Yugoslavia. And he did so with a churlishness that cannot be excused on grounds of policy: Churchill’s only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill’s conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. “I hate Indians,” he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for “breeding like rabbits.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html#ixzz2497TRBdw”
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya100212.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh
Replying to jkl:
The Book of Common Prayer, as well as Shakespeare’s writings, might be better placed as a subheading of 1.) the English language.
Regarding “dissenting Protestant religions”, I was thinking of the Pilgrims and the Puritans in America, but the broader category of religious freedom would have been more accurate.
The items you cite as having been born in the School of Salamanca and the Jesuits may well be right. But, looking at the culture of Latin America versus the culture of the Anglophone world, the march of freedom across the world has been more an English phenomenon than an Iberian one.
I admire totally the “real” British Empire, but am appalled at the idolization of an “idealized” Empire, particularly for it biggest mistake, the results of which still echo in history. Following Niall Ferguson’s lead, the British were the ones who changed a continental fight, Germany vs. France (which would have ended with Germany dominating the Continent–like today), into a world war in order to protect their Empire status where it had no business to be (no idealistic defense of “freedom”). Add the pro-British Wilson’s support of the “Allies” (and my grandparents did not speak German openly for fear of Wilson’s vigilantes who hunted down even verbal dissent and more, part of Wilsonian dictatorship over dissenters), which aided the French and British to smash a CIVILIED power so much so that it was internally destroyed, thereby creating the background enabling the seizure of poweer by UNcivilized monsters such as Hitler. When the Nazies attacked Poland in 1939, they alone could not defeat Poland (not enough planes, tanks and gas–and, oh yes, trained soldiers) and became TOTALLY bogged down by the Poles in Limberg (then part of Poland) where only infantry alone could attack. Alone Germany could not have beat Poland, the Red Army was necessary. All the time while the Germans were attacking, their Western Front was almost totally undefended and the British and French did not attack–>Germany withdrawing troops from Poland–>>collapse of Eastern Front. Indeed, the Poles were disappointed as they expected more than “words” from the Britsh-French axis (not to mention the sell out of the Free Polish Army to Stalin by a certain Brit). After the 1939 victory German and Allied troops had a “sitting-war” (the British/French did not attack!) for an entire year until the Nazi could reorganize their forces for their surprise attack that pushed the Brits into the sea in just a few weeks. Very stupied military strategy! That the Brits then stood ALONE under Churchchill was and is their moment of glory for which I profusely thank them. The non-necessary interference into a German/French conflict of 1914 (one that had flared up more than once leading from a French to a German dominance in the century+ long struggle) contributed to the destruction of a CIVILIZED Monarchy slowly evolving constitutionally. The WW 2 resistance was, indeed, Britain’s finest hour; its WW 1 provoking interference was not in defense of the West against tryanny, rather pure self-interest to block a rival Empire, as empirely civilized as its own empire-self (not to mention the French empire and superior to the Belgium genocide in the Congo). So, while joining the choir of adulators of the British Empire (and Ferguson holds a high opinion of said Empire), I find it hard to praise its deliterious role in WW 1 (and I still remember the stories of my grandparents fears of the Wilson anti-German police tactics). So, with a bit of restraint, I join the applause–and am joyously happy that the English part of my family actually took part in throwing the bums out after 1776.
Gents,
I’d be the last person on earth to deny Britains noble and enduring legacy: liberalism, parliamentary democracy, resistance in WWII, etc.
HOWEVER,
American revolutionaries did not think MUCH of Britains imperial grandeur and they, like all of you, were very aware of Britains contributions to political philosophy etc. They were inspired in part by British ideals (locke, for instance) but were not too keen on empires.(to say the least)
Divine right was something that they abhorred. They were, well, they were REPUBLICANS, not monarchists.
The American revolutionaries were far more progressive and visionary, in my view.
The American Citizen is not the British Subject.
American merit has nothing to do with (british) Social Class.
Still, there are many commonalities between both countries. Thankfully.
Well said, on the whole, Liberal. Yet I would be careful about applying the word “progressive” to the American Revolutionaries. They were progressive in the sense of valuing liberty and other ideas and practices that work well in the real word, but they were not in accord with today’s “Progressives” who favor big-government solutions and forced collectivism, and who are opposed to much individual liberty.
Many American Rebels believed that they were fighting to retain their traditional rights as Englishmen–rights which men like John Locke articulated. So, much of what you say, Liberal, is accurate, but I would just add a few things here and there.
Agreed.
The American founders were very aware of the precedents in the Glorious (English) Revolution of 1688, which was the second time in one century that the English had relieved themselves of a monarch. The first one (English Civil War, Commonwealth, Cromwellian dictatorship, Restoration) had been such a bloody thing that they looked to the bloodless coup of 1688 as an important precedent for what they wanted to do.
Micky,
look, mate, the question i made is very relevant:
if the british empire was so peachy creamy, then what led the founding fathers to reject with a bloody revolution??
i believe it is a fair question.
did they not reject it?? is this BS???
I love britains contribution to humanity, especially liberalism!!!
but it is a fair question that you ought to consider.
sorry:
if the british empire was so peachy creamy, then what led the founding fathers to reject it with a bloody revolution??
why was it not peachy creamy for them (founding fathers)????
attempting to answer this question is not equivalent to a denial of the special relationship. quite the contrary. it demonstrates how intertwined the fates of both countries were and are.
I am very appreciative of the British Empire. Thanks to them, I can walk into a tavern or inn almost anywhere in the (non-Muslim) world and get a decent locally brewed beer. Thank you John Bull! (And John Courage)
I see Britain as a stepping stone; a former power that enjoyed their day in the sun (the Sun has certainly set on them), and which offers many lessons that we can examine with hindsight, and compare how certain policies have played out in the present.
The most glaring contrast is the subtle nature of the British constitution and the Monarchy enjoying a special position which is undeserved (nothing more than wealthy welfare recipients), and the purity and clarity of the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, with the glorious principles of Freedom and casting off the yoke of tyranny and the doctrine of manly resistance to any degree of unjust state taxation, a stark divergence that is both political and spiritual.
I also think of the Brits as a bureaucratic blueprint for state failure. While there is a transition to democracy inherent in their system, they are still subject to “the crown” and all the state appetites and corruption that it represents.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams
Above I let off some steam against the British Empire. However, some of the criticisms (uncluding my own) miss the profounder points. Negatively, it is true that an Empire entails a military take over of “foreign” territories. But, that is the way it has been for mellenia. We in the West in general (and I here in Germany) owe our cultural identity to the Roman Empire. For instance, it brought civilization to us Germanic types–so much so that my forefathers flooded the Empire to historical death. But the notion of a “Roman Empire”, to be sure “of the German Nation” formed the basis around and from which modern Germany has its origins. The thoughts of the American Founders were steeped in Cicero. So on and so on! What am I saying? To judge a historical phase, it is not sufficient to apply categories like “peachy creamy”.
Let me focus the matter quickly. We Americans had self-government to one degree or another for a couple of centuries under British colonial rule before we revolted. Upon completion of the revolution we managed to install a “republican” (not democratic) form of self-rule. Indeed, the powers of the American president evince quasi-kingly autonomy, to be blocked and judged by the legislature and courts–all with historical origins in England and not, say, in Spain. I mention Spain specifically because the Latin Americans revolted against Spain soon after the American Revolution. Spain had allowed for NO self-government. Even the pure bred Spanards born in the New World were not allowed to govern. The result was that all Latin American revolutions ended in dictatorships. No practice at self-rule was present. I once read the writings of Simon Bolivar who vainly tried to invent a fool-proof, viz., dictatorship-proof governmental system in its formality, since all other formalities had ended in failure. And who admires Bolivar today? Chavez of Venezuela!
What point to I wish to make? I hold it for a historical blessing that our “Empire masters” were the British and not, say, the Spanards, not to speak of the Huns. So, an empire is not an empire in its mode of governing it subjects. The British Empire did bring order to much of the world and did enable the growth of self-rule in its territories. Just try to imagine how India would have evolved politically if a Nazi-like Germany had ruled the place. –Speaking of Germany: The WW 1 smashing of the slowly evolving Monarchy towards parlimentarism led to the introduction of the radically democratic Weimar Republik which, as one wise German said, was a democracy without democrats. Forumalted differently: The German self-rule evolution was not sufficient to withstand the stress and strains of a historical break of continuity leading to a republic full of anti-republicans. So, my German example illustrates the need for “evolution” of self-government traditions. And such an evolution was granted to us Americans by the Britsh. Here I join the praise of the British Empire. And when the British tried to close down this development after the 7 Years War, we revolted. Here I join my English/American forefathers who joined in the revolting.
“We Americans had self-government to one degree or another for a couple of centuries under British colonial rule before we revolted.”
Yes, this is a key point. There were elements of self-rule in England stretching back at least into Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Angevin times. We in America owe a lot to the English. Its too bad that today’s UK is throwing away much of the good that they inherited.
Prof. Wessel
Peachy creamy is certainly not a category of historical analysis.
I did not present it as such.
It is a form of speech, as it were.
It is a metaphor, as it were.
Perhaps I should reformulate it: if the British Empire was so intrinsically good and benevolent, why did the American Founding Fathers rebel against it??
I am not a historian. It was an honest question, somewhat provocative, to be sure. As far as I know, the Brits did permit some elements of self rule in the American Colonies. Yet, I suspect that self-rule was somewhat limited. Its function was, i’d say hesitantly, that of legitimising imperial domination. It was, ive been told, a favourite and very astute strategy of imperial control: you give the colonised the impression that they are “free”. The Romans employed this strategy to great effect, as did Napoleon. Still, there was some self-rule, to be sure, a very positive cultural heritage. The Town Hall meetings was an attempt to fight British imperial centralisation??? I do not know, to be honest.
best
Liberal
oops.
I repeat the question, Prof Wessel.
What were the causes of the American Revolution????
Why did the American Founding Fathers rebelled against the very Liberating British Imperialism?????
oki doki.
sorry for being a nuisance but i forgot to respond to EGIL.
I agree with you, mate. Historical meanings change. solid fact.
the progressives of today have little to do with the progressives of the American Revolution.
forgive me petulance, but i thought this may interest you:
http://www.amazon.com/Futures-Past-Semantics-Historical-Contemporary/dp/0231127715/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345578952&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=kosellec
best regards, Egil
Lib
free chapters
hope u like it
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7845&mode=toc
The proof is in the outcomes.
By many measures, “How British is your culture?” tracks pretty well with “How prosperous is your culture?” Botswana vs Mozambique, for example. New Zealand vs Madagascar. Hong Kong vs Hanoi.