Jimmy Carr once argued that empires do not truly collapse and disappear; instead, they evolve into new forms. He suggested that the Roman Empire lives on through the legal systems and courts of the West, while the British Empire persists through modern banking and financial institutions. How accurate is this claim?
Are there lessons from the decline of the British empire that can be used to stop the American/Western world order from collapsing in a similar way, leading to a China-first or less desirable world order?
What is your favourite "what if...?" Moment of history, it doesn't have to be about an important moment, only that it might have led to a different present.
The British and other European empires often get blamed for "colonialism" and all of its effects but other empires, such as the Ottomans dont really get this level of attention
Was there something fundamentally different about the British version of empires that explains this, or do you chalk it all up to modern day politics?
The narrative the average man or woman believes now is that England’s technological and economic success is primarily due to colonialism and the slave trade. How much truth is there to this?
England seems to have been very entrepreneurial during the 17th-18th centuries establishing colonies like Jamestown and India and inventing machines like the steam engine. I don't see that same entrepreneurial spirit today. Is that accurate and, if it is, why is that?
What do you think of films and TV shows about historic events and people for which the casting is multiracial or multicultural? The issues seem to revolve around how true to the time or to the actual people involved should we expect the filmmaker to be. Is there a duty to offer parts to actors whose appearance does not coincide with the historic personage they play, in order to give opportunities to actors from varying backgrounds?
Britain developed thirteen colonies that became the United States, ten that became Canada, six that became Australia, and, New Zealand.
These societies emerged in vastly different climates and conditions, yet ALL became stable, free, and prosperous. ALL!
No other european power seems to have replicated this success on the same scale. It is difficult to think of an equivalent number of former colonies of france, spain, or portugal that achieved comparable outcomes. It is difficult to think of one!
So what was Britain's reproducible "special sauce"?
You've said your approach to empire is to hold contradictions — that slavery and abolition can both be true at once, and you don't take sides. But across your work the perpetration story and "White Debt" get far more airtime than the abolition story: Britain being the first major industrial power to outlaw the trade, and the Royal Navy then spending six decades suppressing it at real cost in blood and money. If both halves are genuinely true, what explains the asymmetry — and given the size of your platform, isn't the emphasis you choose itself a position, even as you present it as neutral?Correction has an endpoint — when does it become its own distortion, and how would you know you'd overshot?
Could King George V have saved the Romanovs and maintain the British Monarchy, or would this have lead to the ultimate demise of Britain's royal family?
I seem to remember Alex Churchill saying something about this. I think it was that the decision to deny them entry in 1917 was Lloyd George's not theirs.
In the USA there has been a push by history educators to view all eras through the lenses of women's, minorities', and indigenous peoples' lives. Do you see this approach as helping or handicapping students?
We seem to have no clue what bring British means today, apart from discussing the weather and having a nice cup of tea.
Through your work do you see a trend or facet that keeps popping up and you think 'thats unique to the British"?
Jimmy Carr once argued that empires do not truly collapse and disappear; instead, they evolve into new forms. He suggested that the Roman Empire lives on through the legal systems and courts of the West, while the British Empire persists through modern banking and financial institutions. How accurate is this claim?
Was Africa and India better off under British rule than it is today? Can you make the case that de-colonization was bad?
Are there lessons from the decline of the British empire that can be used to stop the American/Western world order from collapsing in a similar way, leading to a China-first or less desirable world order?
What is your favourite "what if...?" Moment of history, it doesn't have to be about an important moment, only that it might have led to a different present.
The British and other European empires often get blamed for "colonialism" and all of its effects but other empires, such as the Ottomans dont really get this level of attention
Was there something fundamentally different about the British version of empires that explains this, or do you chalk it all up to modern day politics?
The narrative the average man or woman believes now is that England’s technological and economic success is primarily due to colonialism and the slave trade. How much truth is there to this?
England seems to have been very entrepreneurial during the 17th-18th centuries establishing colonies like Jamestown and India and inventing machines like the steam engine. I don't see that same entrepreneurial spirit today. Is that accurate and, if it is, why is that?
If you could go back in time and be a witness to any event in English history, what would it be?
Great question!
What do you think of films and TV shows about historic events and people for which the casting is multiracial or multicultural? The issues seem to revolve around how true to the time or to the actual people involved should we expect the filmmaker to be. Is there a duty to offer parts to actors whose appearance does not coincide with the historic personage they play, in order to give opportunities to actors from varying backgrounds?
How much Celtic influence can be seen in modern Britain
BRITAIN'S SECRET SAUCE.
Britain developed thirteen colonies that became the United States, ten that became Canada, six that became Australia, and, New Zealand.
These societies emerged in vastly different climates and conditions, yet ALL became stable, free, and prosperous. ALL!
No other european power seems to have replicated this success on the same scale. It is difficult to think of an equivalent number of former colonies of france, spain, or portugal that achieved comparable outcomes. It is difficult to think of one!
So what was Britain's reproducible "special sauce"?
Why Britain? Why not France? Yes, I know they had an empire of their own but it was a lot less impressive.
You've said your approach to empire is to hold contradictions — that slavery and abolition can both be true at once, and you don't take sides. But across your work the perpetration story and "White Debt" get far more airtime than the abolition story: Britain being the first major industrial power to outlaw the trade, and the Royal Navy then spending six decades suppressing it at real cost in blood and money. If both halves are genuinely true, what explains the asymmetry — and given the size of your platform, isn't the emphasis you choose itself a position, even as you present it as neutral?Correction has an endpoint — when does it become its own distortion, and how would you know you'd overshot?
Could King George V have saved the Romanovs and maintain the British Monarchy, or would this have lead to the ultimate demise of Britain's royal family?
I seem to remember Alex Churchill saying something about this. I think it was that the decision to deny them entry in 1917 was Lloyd George's not theirs.
In the USA there has been a push by history educators to view all eras through the lenses of women's, minorities', and indigenous peoples' lives. Do you see this approach as helping or handicapping students?