We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Mihir Bose has a very interesting and though provoking article in the Telegraph about why many of the lessons of the American ‘melting pot’ have little resonance or even relevance to Britain.
The difference is simple but profound: America can impose a coherent historical narrative on immigrants because the countries they come from had no previous involvement with America. Settlers are able and encouraged to discard their native histories and accept the American version.
But the vast majority of non-white immigrants to Britain have come from our former colonies, and bring not only their own cultures but also their own versions of our shared history. So, in trying to construct a single coherent narrative for this island, we are faced with trying to marry two historical streams: the “home” version and the “export” version.
I am not sure I agree with the entire thrust of the article but it certainly provides considerable food for thought. Certainly I have always found it curious how, at least in my experience, race relations in Britain have been (generally) far better compared to the USA (and I only speak from my personal observations) and with far less government intervention forcing that state of affairs to be the norm, at least until quite recently. Perhaps Mihir Bose’s article contains some of the reasons underpinning that. That could be worth pondering.
It has not been a good last few days in the airline industry. Today, a passenger jet crashed in Venezuela, killing its entire passenger muster of more than 160 people. A Cypriot airliner crashed in Greece at the weekend, killing its entire passenger list and crew. And a few days previously, an Air France plane had a crash near Toronto, but fortunately all the passengers survived.
There is probably no direct connection to all this but it is a harsh reminder that, even in an age of ever-improving safety standards, air travel carries its hazards (and of course that is even before we get to the terror issue). It is also makes me aware that the skies over southern Britain, for example, are crammed with aircraft and it is still amazing that not more accidents occur than is the case. The volume of aircraft now flying to and from Heathrow’s mega-airport is extraordinary and continues to grow. The margins for error when it comes to potential collisions must be razor-thin.
You do not expect top of the range black comedy in a movie like My Girl. But they showed it for the umpteenth time on TV the other day, and I caught this line, spoken by Jaime Lee Curtis, playing a make-up artist anxious to get a job in a mortuary. Forgive me if my memory has got this a bit wrong, but the way I remember it, it went like this:
I’ll take real good care of these people, Mr Sultenfuss. They deserve it. They’re dead. All they have are their looks.
At the end of this successful search for the line, you find only the last two sentences that I searched for. But I think it helps to have the two before as well. The point is, this is a nice movie, about nice people, being nice to each other. This lady is not cracking a joke about dead people just to get a laugh. She really wants them to look their best before they make their final exits.
Cameron Carswell discusses the role of the World Trade Organization in promoting free trade.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) draws wrath from people of all sides of the political spectrum. There are those supporters of globalization who oppose it on principle, saying that while free trade is a desirable goal such an organization implies it needs to be “managed”. It makes sense to be sceptical of the idea that economic liberalism and free trade can be imposed from the top down – for an excellent and balanced view of this by Dr. Razeen Sally see here.
There are those who oppose globalization and see the WTO as advancing the very process others see it as hampering. The question is, does the WTO genuinely advance free trade (with all the associated benefits), or is it merely a vehicle for special interests and rent seeking?
There are some elements of the WTO rules which do seem at odds with the goal of free trade – Chinese clothing exports are currently limited under special WTO rules. However it could equally be argued that this was merely a practical measure to prevent further trade barriers being set up.
The WTO is designed to promote free trade but by its nature as an international organization is open to politicisation. If it is the case that trade barriers are reduced as a result of the pressure it exerts then all the better. On the other hand, unilateral moves toward freer trade are invariably good things, and it would appear that this is the most likely route for the goal of free trade, once again with China leading the way.
Samizdata editor Adriana is going to be in New York and is looking for hook up with some of the Big Apple’s blognoscenti for a ‘geek dinner’ along the lines of previous successful geekfests.
Does that sound interesting to you? Well then take a look at this wiki which has just been set up and invite yourself!
Via the Global Growth blog comes news of the recently (June of this year) launched Private Sector Development blog.
Says the Global Growth blog:
Its great to see that market approaches to development thinking are gaining traction, yet more evidence that a new paradigm is forming.
Indeed.
Although, I have already spotted one error in this new blog. In his June 29th posting, Pablo Halkyard says that Bill Nighy played the Chancellor of the Exchequer in The Girl in the Café (my opinion of The Girl in the Café is to be found here). No. Nighy played a mere civil servant. The Chancellor was played by the appropriately Scottish Ken Stott.
This is a small error. That the private sector is the way to go for enriching countries that are now poor is a great truth.
The Architect and His Wife: A Life of Edwin Lutyens
Jane Ridley
Chatto & Windus, 2002
The great grand-daughter of the architect (“Ned” to all) and his wife (Lady Emily Lutyens, nee Lytton) has set herself the quadrangular task of describing the lives of both of them, together with his architecture and her theosophy. Their interests, to which both were strongly bound, conflicted and in others, and probably at other times, would have ensured their separation. But as his letters (The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife Lady Emily, edited by Clayre Percy and Jane Ridley) can attest, much more strongly than this book does, they retained a deep affection for each other, certainly amounting to love initially and at the end of their lives together. “In the last years of his life,” wrote Lady Emily, in her autobiography Candles in the Sun, “I like to think that we were closer to each other than we had ever been before.” And, penitently, after re-reading their letters two months after his death, she found hers and herself “a revelation of such an odious person, and Father so endlessly sweet and patient.” His letters (a superb collection, and a joy to read) certainly bear this out: as far as I know, hers have not been published – perhaps as she would have wished.
Unfortunately their incompatibilities were enormous. Just for a start, neither seemed to have any idea how to make love. Perhaps if Emily had been seduced by Wilfred Scawen Blunt, “a corridor-creeper” as someone characterised him (and got away with it; and, in the circumstances it did seem an amazingly close-run thing – see A Blessed Girl by Lady Emily herself) he might have taught her how to initiate the obviously clumsy virgin Ned. As it was, after the birth of Mary, the youngest child, she refused (by letter) to have any further sexual relations with him. Fortunately, perhaps, they did not live together very much; at first his work took him to sites and clients, South Africa and India, later her theosophy to camps, congresses, India (he had to warn her that if she came when he was there, he’d have to throw up his work) and Australia. The children suffered terribly – or do I exaggerate? → Continue reading: An odd (but loving) couple
“I do not really think the House of Commons is ‘My Cup of Tea’, I am too much of an individualist, and also, too self-centred and set in my ways. Enough if I remain a mute, just adequate back-bencher, but frankly most of the problems that so excite ‘the Hon. Members’ leave me quite cold and indifferent.”
– Sir Henry “Chips” Channon in his diary entry for December 5th 1935.
Clive Davis, writing for TCS last week, has some sad news for his American friends:
Mrs. Miniver is dead. The funeral was held some time ago, and there were not many mourners in attendance.
Mrs. Miniver being a character in a Hollywood film that represented all that was best about war-time Britain and Middle England. Looking beyond the pageantry of the Anglosphere, a different picture emerges:
Immediately after 9/11, much was made of such ceremonial gestures as the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the Changing of the Guard. Dig a little deeper, though, and there’s no mistaking the hostility to American values among large sections of the British population. Conservative commentators in the US have got plenty of mileage out of jibes at French anti-Americanism; the unpleasant truth is that Britain is home to a similar phenomenon.
Why the hostility? When did this happen and why? My experience supports Clive’s view to some extent. Although I tend to move in circles where America may be criticised for some things but respected for many of its qualities, I am often taken aback by latent anti-Americanism when talking to people outside those circles. The most annoying thing about such attitude is that it is emotive, not based on anything other than some misplaced zen-like view of the world. Well, you know, there should be some counter-balance to the US power… . As Clive quite rightly notes it is a potent mix of ignorance and arrogance that feeds the Middle England’s political cosmology. (Or shall I say astrology…)
Perhaps as a consequence of all those hours spent sighing over Hugh Grant, Americans tend to assume that British are much more worldly and sophisticated than they really are. The truth is, when it comes to knowledge of American history and institutions, the Brits are woefully uninformed. What they are familiar with is American popular culture, which is – as I don’t need to remind you – a different thing all together. The result of that false sense of familiarity is a toxic combination of ignorance and arrogance. Besides, the British middle classes (like many of their counterparts in the US) do not necessarily see American popular culture as an unmitigated force for good. As the cultural critic Martha Bayles observes in an essay on public diplomacy in the latest edition of the Wilson Quarterly: “Popular culture is no longer ‘America’s secret weapon.’ On the contrary, it is a tsunami by which others feel engulfed. ”
Indeed, the thing that seems to gall the British chattering classes and, at the same time, helps them maintain their sense of superiority is the impression that Americans are, oh so, stupid. I find myself replying with increasing frequency that in a country where people are free to be as triumpantly stupid, it also means that they are free to be triumphantly creative and innovative.
Update: Clive posted comments emailed by readers of the TCS article on his blog.
I am watching that supreme embodiment of the Anglosphere culture at the moment – cricket, surely the finest game invented by Man. England are building on their first-innings batting performance against a rather shaky-looking Australia, although the Aussies have a chance to draw the match I think thanks to a superb batting effort by Shane Warne. Warne is normally and rightly famed for his leg spin, able to make the ball move in a bewitching fashion.
The Ashes series, as the England vs Australia Test matches are known, are currently shown on the Channel 4 terrestrial tv channel. The channel has made a huge success of its cricket coverage, I think. Its commenators are excellent, intelligent and don’t interrupt the flow of play. Even the adverts shown during a brief pause in play don’t irritate me like I thought they would. Simon Hughes, a true cricket geek, does a fine job of explaining key terms and tactics to novices. Cricket is a complex game and yet the presenters seem to make it accessible without dumbing it down.
Four of us Samizdata scribblers are split down the middle on this Ashes series, I guess. Two Aussies – Scott Wickstein and Michael Jennings – pitted against Brian Micklethwait and yours truly.
Update, despite the so-far snarky remarks in the comments sections, my joy continues to rise thanks to today’s batting performance. Summary of the game here.
You really need to click on this picture.
“No part of my job involves stopping people from fornicating”
– Elena Procopiu
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
