Mike, At 11:08 11/10/02 -0600, you wrote: >Hi Keith, > >All very interesting - the stuff about the mechanics institutes and >socialism is all very true (the social history of Britain in the 19th >century was my specialty at one time) though it exaggerates it's extent, I >think - it was confined to the skilled craft unions who looked after >themselves - but the stuff about the government reforms of the civil service >and the institution of state education is a little too conspiracy-theorist >for me. There were people pointing to the economic growth of Germany and >and the United States and joining the dots to their educational system. The >reforms of the civil service had a lot to do with its perceived inefficiency >in the context of an industrial state. The army was reformed at the same >time for the same reasons. What spoiled it was the prejudice against >science and engineering, as you rightly point out. Requiring Latin and >Greek certainly kept the hoi polloi out, though not the sons of the nouveau >riche industrialists.
Yes, this was the irony of the times! In the course of the century, the old land-owning aristocracy had been largely shouldered aside as a political force by the industrial lobbies (separate ones: owners and workers), yet the second and third generation of the nouveau riche became eloquently aggressive (otherwise known as Romanticism) against the very source of their wealth. Talk about disloyalty! Nobody (to my knowledge) has yet adequately explained the massive shift in attitude that occurred between, say, the 1851 Exhibition when we were (rightly) so proud of our innovative abiliuties, and the anti-science, anti-engineering, anti-commercial attitudes of the establishment by the turn of the century. We still feel the anti-science effects today, a century later -- mainly by a galloping shortage of science teachers. >People really did think that studying the classics >prepared a person to understand how the (social and political) world works >and how to rule, as well as inculcating eternally valid values of beauty, >courage/heroism and love of country. > >The quotation reads as though Britain's decline lay at the door of its >education system. It didn't help, but much more important were the >protectionist trade policies of the United States, France and Germany which >allowed them to develop their industrial bases. To give an example, Britain >built railways and sold locomotives in every part of the world - except the >US, France and Germany. Once the US and Germany industrialized there was no >way Britain was going to stay at the top of the heap. I can't agree here. Yes, your facts are correct. But I think we'd already lost heart internally in the treacherous turn already alluded to -- against industry and exports and in favour of pomp and empire. >The problem as always, is that a power at its peak believes itself and its >values eternal and invincible. Success breeds overweening arrogance. It >happened to Venice, Holland and France before Britain and it is happening to >the United States today. Yes, indeed. One of the most fascinating questions of today is the fate of biogenetics in America and China respectively. Bush's preoccupation with oil is, to my mind, seriously anachronistic and I'm sure future historians will see this as having been fatal to America's former pretensions. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
