[beckett]

I agree quite completely that the present troubles around the world cannot all be laid at the feet of European colonialism. If my statement implied as much, it's only because it was inartfully written. Most of them, as you say, are attributable to the failings of human condition in general and to the "tyrannical impulse" that seems to be so pronounced in the developing world.

But some of the difficulties of the present time are directly traceable to the breakup of the British Empire, e.g., as Steyn notes, Churchill's lack of foresight in laying out the specifics of the Balfour Agreement. And there are other examples, most notably, in my view, the herding of the Muslims of the sub-continent into Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Brits, and others hanging out in the corridors of Versailles, played God. But they lacked His infallibility, I fear. We are still paying the cost of their miscalulations.

[okie01]

"The Brits, and others hanging out in the corridors of Versailles, played God. But they lacked His infallibility, I fear."

Well put. One wonders if they actually sought this role, as opposed to merely accepting it as among the responsibilities that came with empire. My guess is that some among them -- we would call them liberals today -- actually cherished the opportunity.

Which reminds me of a very incisive piece authored by a Northwestern student that appeared yesterday. Liberals Insult The Very People They Try To Help.

"And there are other examples, most notably, in my view, the herding of the Muslims of the sub-continent into Pakistan and Bangladesh."

Was this not a conscious decision on the part of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the so-called Father of Pakistan? My understanding is that Jinnah demanded a separate Muslim state, as opposed to the multi-cultural state that Gandhi and his followers preferred.

Once the partition was agreed to, a massive population transfer followed.