Posted on 05/21/2015 8:09:09 PM PDT by NRx
On Monday, the Right Honorable David Cameron, prime minister of Great Britain, gave his first major speech after being reelected to his high office — once held by Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill and Thatcher. Confronting a world of challenges — including Greece’s possible exit from the euro, a massive migration crisis on Europe’s shores, Ukraine’s perilous state, Russia’s continued intransigence, the advance of the Islamic State and the continuing chaos in the Middle East — Cameron chose to talk about . . . a plan to ensure that hospitals in the United Kingdom will be better staffed on weekends.
Okay, that’s a bit unfair. Leaders everywhere, including in the United States, understand that “all politics is local.” But spending a few days recently in Britain, I was struck by just how parochial it has become. After an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a global power.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
9/11 was an anomaly. For the briefest of moments, the U.S. united against a common threat. But it soon devolved into political posturing for voter blocs with threats used to consolidate power in the Federal government at the expense of the body politic.
Interesting column by Zakaria, thought provoking and sadly true.
Great Britain sealed her fate when her ruling elite brought millions of Islamic “Asians” in. (Like America’s rulers are doing to USA now).
Think how bad it must be if Fareed Zakaria has noticed it.
Zakaria needs to plagiarize more interesting stuff than this.
Essay is well worth reading in its’ entirety.
well, I would argue that Britain as a world power was for 250 years — from 1750 to 2000. Napoleon’s blockade of British ports and the wars strangely enough made England richer and more distinct
Actually most "Asians" in the UK are Hindus-Sikhs-Christians. They use the term "Asian" for "South Asians" and the term "East Asian" for the Far and South-East Asia. The hindus, sikhs and christians have integrated well, but the mozzies haven't
The UK is what made the English dominant -- once they had dominated the Scots by converting them to Protestantism (earlier to this the Scots always allied themselves with the French against the English), they didn't have to face enemies on land
They were under the tutelage of the Dutch until the early 1700s and then in the early 1700s they defeated the Dutch in the third anglo-dutch war, they united with the Scots 1707 and Spain declined as a result of its wars with Louis XIV.
the English were the real ones to benefit from Napoleon's wars -- as the other european powers concentrated on land battles while the English were bloackaded so had to move far afield
They were also benefited by the collapse of the Moghuls after Aurangzeb in 1701 and their replacement by the Maratha confederation -- a squabbling mass of rajahs
Even this year barely 1/3rd of Brits know that Waterloo was a battle not an Abba song...
Yes. The Moslems are the only group we know of who are taught from birth to attack, subjugate or murder Christians, Jews, and other innocent people. Thry need to be repatriated to their own countries ASAP .
The Left gets EXACTLY what they’ve demanded FOR DECADES, which is to gut military spending and hand out that money as welfare.
...and now they’re complaining that ‘evil countries’ like Russia, Iran, and China are sweeping in to fill the vacuum.
UNREAL.
Good post, even if I don’t agree re Scots and Protestantism.
If you lived here, you will know a—we don’t answer opinion polls seriously b—we DO know Waterloo is a famous battle.
Methinks the poll was what do you first think of when you hear the word Waterloo. And given that the UK has been ABBA mad (inc me) for 40 yrs, the answer makes sense.
The fact that the Scots were fellow Protestants helped the island country not fear a land war
A survey of Britons published Friday in the build-up to the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo found three-quarters knew little or nothing about it -- while many thought France won.
The poll of 2,070 people for the National Army Museum found 73 percent either knew nothing or next to nothing about the battle, one of the most important in the nation's history.
When asked what came to mind when Waterloo was mentioned, 54 percent of people aged 18 to 24 said the London railway station named after the battle, while 46 percent cited the Eurovision-winning song by Swedish pop group ABBA.
I’m glad you made that amendment, but even ‘abetted’ is a bit strong. The Calvinism established in Scotland by John Knox c. 1560 was to all intents and purposes entirely independent of, and theologically quite distinct from the English Reformation happening at roughly the same time. There was never any serious attempt subsequently to merge the Church of Scotland (and its subsequent schismatic offshoots) with the Church of England, despite the Union of so many other aspects of the two nations. Anglicanism and Scottish Presbyterianism have always kept a distance from each other.
So that poll shows that I was right on name recognition, and that most Brits HAVE heard of the battle, but know little. I said we knew of it, but public grasp of the actual battle would be slim. That’s different to never having heard of it.
I agree more British people should be more knowledgable about it and other battles. I also stand by my cynical British love-hate relationship with polls, lol. I once gave my name to one as James Mattoon Scott. The young lad never battered an eyelid. LOL
I would say that the UK since Aug 1914 has been knee deep in WW1 stories and facts on TV, radio and media and will be for the next 3 yrs.
I will also tell you that thanks to TV like the BBC’s Who Do You Think You Are and films like Gladiator or The Initation Game, history and esp family history is bigger in the UK as it has been for some years. History book sales are up, TV and radio history programmes are very popular, study of history at college and university is up.
The British are more passionate and learning more about history than say 2000 or 1990. They can switch on the TV and find many history docs to whet their appetite even just across the five major terrestrial channels, as well as many cable/sat channels, which most of the UK has some sort of access to, from fully Sky TV or Virgin TV packages to the cheap end with basic non-HD ‘Freeview’, a very cheap one off satellite box receiver. You can even get the latter for £5-6 in charity shops!.
I don’t agree, Scotland from the 15th/early 16th C was moving more and more towards a Union with England.
https://patrioticunionist.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/the-scottish-roots-of-unionism/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.