Tag Archives: Cambridge

INDIAN SUMMERS & HOME FIRES REVIEWED

indian-summers-series-1-3260

It’s hard to imagine that the British drunkards, fornicators and adulterers on “Indian Summers” could have run an empire, but that’s what the latest offering on PBS’s Masterpiece Theater is having us believe.

I’m sure that some of that went on, as it has done in every nation, but surely not everybody?   Even the resident missionary in Simla has had an extramarital relationship.

Sunday’s episode went so far as to suggest that there was one law for the Brits and one for the natives, that innocent until proven guilty did not apply to Indians.  Indian writer Dinesh d’Souza once wrote that one of the greatest gifts the British gave India was the legal system, including this very point.   Equality before the law is a basic principle of English common law, thanks to the Magna Carta, which is being remembered this year, 800 years after its signing.

I’ve written before of how in the last days of colonial Rhodesia, a young white male who murdered a black taxi driver was hanged for his crime.   The fact that he was white was no excuse.

“Indian Summers” also gives the impression that the British oppressed the Indians.  Difficult when the Indians outnumbered them 1,200 to 1.

And if the Indians hated the British so much, why have so many moved to England since independence?

A more accurate portrayal of British history can be found on the BBC World News channel.   “The Birth of Empire” is a documentary series on the British East India Company, the biggest commercial enterprise in the history of the world.   It started as a trading company in 1600, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and was so successful it ended up running the sub-continent.

Eventually, the British government took over the responsibility of administering the Indian empire.

Note the following quote from Indian writer Dinesh D’Souza:

“Despite their suspect motives and bad behavior, however, the British needed a certain amount of infrastructure to effectively govern India.  So they built roads, shipping docks, railway tracks, irrigation systems, and government buildings.   Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice.   And so the British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like “innocent until proven guilty.”   The British also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire.   Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke.   In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture:   “liberty,” “sovereignty,” “rights,” and so on.

“That brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians:   They taught them the language of freedom.   Once again, it was not the objective of the colonial rulers to encourage rebellion.   But by exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, they did.   The Indian leaders were the product of Western civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru was a product of Harrow and Cambridge.  That exposure was not entirely to the good; Nehru, for example, who became India’s first prime minister after independence, was highly influenced by Fabian socialism through the teachings of Harold Laski.   The result was that India had a mismanaged socialist economy for a generation.   But my broader point is that the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language, and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors.  This was true not just of India but also of other Asian and African countries that broke free of the European yoke.

“My conclusion is that against their intentions, the colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism.   It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things by themselves.   It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee — the custom of tossing widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres.   There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own.   Imagine an African or Indian king encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, “You know, I think those fellows have a good point.   I should relinquish my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule.”   Somehow, I don’t see that as likely.

“Colonialism was the transmission belt that brought to Asia, Africa, and South America the blessings of Western civilization.  Many of those cultures continue to have serious problems of tyranny, tribal and religious conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment, but that is not due to an excess of Western influence; rather, it is due to the fact that those countries are insufficiently Westernized.   Sub-Saharan Africa, which is probably in the worst position, has been described by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as “a cocktail of disasters.”  That is not because colonialism in Africa lasted so long, but because it lasted a mere half-century.   It was too short a time to permit Western institutions to take firm root.  Consequently, after their independence, most African nations have retreated into a kind of tribal barbarism that can be remedied only with more Western influence, not less.   Africa needs more Western capital, more technology, more rule of law, and more individual freedom.”      (“Two Cheers For Colonialism,” Dinesh d’Souza, 5/8/2002).

I couldn’t have put it better myself!

_______________________________________________________________________

A more accurate Masterpiece Theater presentation is the series “Home Fires” which has been showing immediately prior to “Indian Summers.”   This series, which ended its first season last night, is set in an English village during World War II.   The program revolves around the Women’s Institute and its efforts to help the war effort locally by growing and canning food, knitting and sewing, and raising funds to buy ambulances.

With many of the men in their lives fighting on the front lines around the world, the ladies are faced with a whole series of difficult challenges, including food rationing and the preparation for bombing raids.

The series ended with hundreds of planes of the Royal Air Force flying overhead on their way to fight the Battle of Britain.   The villagers are contemplating the reality of a Nazi invasion with all the changes that would bring.

It’s well worth watching and is available on DVD and Netflix.

Advertisements

TRUMP ON IMMIGRANTS

trump1-061615

Donald Trump has hit a nerve!

What he said was decidedly politically incorrect, but many people clearly feel the same way.   Mr. Trump is now leading the Republican pack in the opinion polls.

His comment on the need to do something about illegal immigrants following the murder of a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco by an illegal who has been deported five times was roundly condemned in the liberal media and by the other candidates.

Hillary Clinton was one of those condemning the comment.   She needs to think more deeply.   She is in favor of granting citizenship to the eleven million illegal aliens in the United States.   At the same time, she is trying to sell herself as the leading candidate to represent the working-man, the very people most threatened by immigrants.

Some immigration is needed.  America’s education system does not produce enough people with the skills to serve the country.   But millions have arrived on these shores who end up at the bottom of society, competing for low wage jobs with the working poor.   This includes many African Americans, another group Mrs. Clinton, a multi-millionaire, likes to think she represents.

The best thing she could do to raise their standard of living, to create jobs and boost incomes, is to advocate curbs on immigration.   If that’s what people want, they would be better dumping Hillary for the Donald.

It’s not just illegals that are the problem.

Five men are dead and others critically injured, leaving a number of children without a father, following shooting incidents in Chattanooga by a legal immigrant from Kuwait.  To put it simply – if this man’s family had not been allowed into the country, five American families would not be going through bereavement right now.   And about a dozen children could still play with Daddy.

The perpetrator of the Chattanooga murders was a Muslim, likely influenced by ISIS, which is calling on supporters to go out and kill men in uniform.

Another Muslim immigrant from Jordan, murdered thirteen Americans in an attack at Fort Hood in November, 2009.

Of course, the biggest attack by Muslim immigrants was on September 11th fourteen years ago when 3,000 were killed.

It’s not just Muslims who do these things.  A young immigrant from South Korea killed 38 Americans, mostly students, at Virginia Tech in 2007.   Again, if he had not been allowed into the country, 38 families could still look forward to their sons and daughters coming home for the holidays.

Of course, it’s not just immigrants that commit murder.   That’s not the point.  A responsibility of government is to do everything possible to guarantee the safety of the people, within the confines of our laws and traditions.  Most people do not want to lose their freedoms to accomplish this.

Our lax immigration laws do not add to our safety.   Rather, they do the opposite, endangering all Americans every single day –we do not know where the next attack is coming from.

It’s widely believed that immigration built this country.   This overlooks the fact that there have been periods in US history when immigration was restricted.   In theory, it still is.  But today’s “restriction” is very generous – well over a million a year, mostly legal immigrants.

Clearly, a national debate is needed on this subject.   This is unlikely to come from any of the presidential candidates, other than Mr. Trump.

Any debate must include a study of just how many murders have been committed by immigrants as well as a study of the economic benefits and losses (losses include the cost of educating immigrant children and providing healthcare to families).

Mr. Trump has been greatly criticized for saying Mexican illegals are “rapists.”   Again, reliable facts and figures are needed here.  The United Kingdom has witnessed recent scandals where Pakistani men, all Muslims, have been grooming young white girls for sex. These sexual grooming gangs have operated in a lot of UK towns, most famously Rochdale and Rotherham, targeting 12-year-olds and above.  Local authorities were afraid to say anything for fear of accusations of “racism.”   Cambridge and Sheffield are two other cities affected by this.

There are differences in cultures.   Mr. Trump’s remark may not be so outrageous after all.   Americans should at least be thankful to him for raising the subject.