There's this joke Professor Wilcox told us about a man taking photographs in the south side of Chicago. And he's sitting on this park bench and he sees from the corner of his eye a man waving a gun and screaming obscenities at him. The photographer freaks out and runs to the nearest cab he can find at the edge of the park, and he bangs on the window for a ride. The cabbie's sitting inside and he rolls down the window and the frantic photographer tells him about the crazy man with the gun. The cabbie looks at the man with bewilderment and says, "He's not trying to kill you, he's just trying to rob you."
We had an interesting discussion on Monday about the identity of the British Empire. Both texts seemed to shape the British Empire as an Empire of Commerce, rather than an Empire of Conquest, an Empire of Freedom rather than an Empire of Tyranny. However, many people pointed out that regardless of what the British identity was, it was evil, and so the texts failed to justify Britain's global domination.
In Ruins of Rome, John Dyer warns against the fall of the British Empire by comparing against the Roman Empire, and by reiterating the values that define it. The text was a lot easier for the class to swallow compared to Rule Britannia, which earned faces of scorn, and jeers and boos. For Wednesday's discussion, try to adjust your modern perspective on Empire in favor of a dated version. Try to put yourself inside the mind of the author or the readers of 1740. Think about this question. Post comments if you'd like:
What is so bad about trying to be the best? Why do we give Britain so much flak for trying to make themselves better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In class I believe we pretty much tore Britain apart for believing in "Rule Britannia". To be so far out of that context makes it difficult to understand how they viewed themselves. Everyone likes to be on the winning team, and in this case, the winning team was winning by conquering and exploiting people. This isn't okay, but I guess I can see how they could be confused into thinking this is right. It was England's prerogative to sprend their way of life, thinking that it was the best and in the name of God. In the 18th century mindset, this can been seen as acceptable and powerful. "Rule Britannia" allows the people of Britain to have might and strength, and it builds a sense of power for their country. A little pride is just fine. Also, the song emphasizes an individualistic mindset, which is opposite to what we view as correct now. I think we all agree that it is important to help others, especially in suffering countries, but Britain in the 18th century may not have seen it that way. For what their mindsets were at the time, "Rule Britannia" is fitting.
Post a Comment