The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Observer's review of English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900
It's the Observer, so you know what to expect: More than reviewing the book, the writer is in effect commenting on us, who celebrate how the alliance of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand "has saved the world in 'one overall, century-long struggle between the English-speaking people's democratic pluralism and fascist intolerance of different varieties.'" But such a declaration has always seen to me to be so much myth-making. Where does Suez fall into such a theory? How does attacking Cuba but mollycoddling China and Saudi Arabia represent a noble struggle? Is New Zealand included because of actions well over 50 years ago and its blue ensign when Taiwan and Japan have been of far more use in maintaining a presence in that region? Is India's massive contribution ignored because they sought to respect their own democratic pluralism and no longer step into whatever breach their masters order?
Mostly for me, the jarring assertion ignores the reality. America bankrupted the UK while getting the latter to single-handedly hold off the Nazi threat from America's doorstep. America up to Korea only fought after the other guy first declared war, not through ideology. It's hard to think of Britain's wars in Kenya and Malaysia being fought to promote pluralism. Australia knows which side its bread is buttered and has now exchanged a British master with an American one. Economics, sirs, not ideology guide us.
We are bound together not so much by language but Anglo-Saxon capitalism. That's my view, not the review's. But in looking at our relationship critically and not through a romanticised mist, we would be paying heed to the author's warning not to "drown(s) out the reasoned and discriminating judgments, the measured understanding of the other sides' perspective, that are the best of English virtues." I myself look at the potential of acknowledging and building upon the imperishable ties that bind us, but that does not mean we need to let sentiment get in the way of the facts.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:06 p.m. | LINKS |
It's the Observer, so you know what to expect: More than reviewing the book, the writer is in effect commenting on us, who celebrate how the alliance of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand "has saved the world in 'one overall, century-long struggle between the English-speaking people's democratic pluralism and fascist intolerance of different varieties.'" But such a declaration has always seen to me to be so much myth-making. Where does Suez fall into such a theory? How does attacking Cuba but mollycoddling China and Saudi Arabia represent a noble struggle? Is New Zealand included because of actions well over 50 years ago and its blue ensign when Taiwan and Japan have been of far more use in maintaining a presence in that region? Is India's massive contribution ignored because they sought to respect their own democratic pluralism and no longer step into whatever breach their masters order?Mostly for me, the jarring assertion ignores the reality. America bankrupted the UK while getting the latter to single-handedly hold off the Nazi threat from America's doorstep. America up to Korea only fought after the other guy first declared war, not through ideology. It's hard to think of Britain's wars in Kenya and Malaysia being fought to promote pluralism. Australia knows which side its bread is buttered and has now exchanged a British master with an American one. Economics, sirs, not ideology guide us.
We are bound together not so much by language but Anglo-Saxon capitalism. That's my view, not the review's. But in looking at our relationship critically and not through a romanticised mist, we would be paying heed to the author's warning not to "drown(s) out the reasoned and discriminating judgments, the measured understanding of the other sides' perspective, that are the best of English virtues." I myself look at the potential of acknowledging and building upon the imperishable ties that bind us, but that does not mean we need to let sentiment get in the way of the facts.
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 9:06 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
