egafd.com

If you only ever read one essay on the teaching of history, make sure it's this one:

Excellent article mate!

The author of that piece has a serious political agenda. He's chosen to highlight the negatives of Empire and won?t allow any of the benefits and positives to be acknowledged. In that he is just another privileged middleclass malcontent with romantic pretensions of social concern and a self imbued moral righteousness.

Whenever I quote a source I try to quote someone who cannot be dismissed with a - "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" For instance, the BBC, Channel 4 or the Guardian - those that lean away from my point of view. Because if they are saying it, it cannot be so blithely dismissed.

Regarding Empire not being successfully. Well, you must have a somewhat differing definition of success to mine, colonel, because if a nation plants it?s flag on half the world, fills it?s coffers to the brim and expands it?s political power and influence across the globe, then I would have to say it was pretty successful. In fact, I can?t think of any other Empire that has achieved that ? all the other previous great Empires were localized, not global. So how can you say it wasn?t successful? Even that Johann Hari dude admits ? ?Britain?s per capita income increased in real terms by 347 percent during the time it owned India,?



Officer Dibble








Intentio! - Officium Dibblus est amplus amor deus

Officer Dibble wrote:

> The author of that piece has a serious political agenda.

Niall Ferguson has the agenda, Dibbs! Empire destroyed the wealth of Calcutta and, as I have argued in the past, drew wealth and work from the colonies and into Britain.

The number of people that the Empire killed- 29 million- is new to me and Ferguson had a dig at Hari in his column in a rival paper.

Which is why Hari had another go the next week......