A History of Modern Britain

I've been watching Andrew Marr's A History of Modern Britain (Tuesday nights, 9pm on BBC2), which is a typically excellent product from the BBC. It's always incredibly difficult to tell an accurate, comprehensive and entertaining story in a television documentary, and I think this documentary does an excellent job. I have much praise and very few gripes with the quality of its presentation, and its use of the medium of television to present footage, photos, audio and especially to re-create the look and feel of an era is very well thought out.

One interesting point which the most recent episode made was in its discussion of a Labour Party Prime Minister who resisted the strong entreaties of a President of the United States of America, from the south, to join the USA in an unpopular war in a distant state. The Prime Minister was Harold Wilson; the President was Lyndon Johnson. Wilson kept British troops out of the war; however, he refused to condemn it and supported the American effort with intelligence and rhetoric. He lost his credibility with the radical left because of his stand and his popularity plummeted. Students demonstrated; riots broke out; and even in his own cabinet, doubts were raised about the wisdom of his stance.

However, he steadfastly held firm, because Britain was a debtor nation, kept afloat only because of American loans. His Labour government had inherited from the previous Tory government a deficit of no less than £8 billion (around £11 billion today) and it needed American credit to keep the hospitals, factories and schools running. As he succinctly put it in a cabinet meeting, "We can't kick our creditors in the balls." Marr argued that his decision to tread the fine line between not supporting the war but not condemning it either was Wilson's finest hour; but it cost him a lot of popularity with the voters.

Wilson's stand is today contrasted with Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq. This leads me to wonder, are we missing a bigger picture? Is there something that Blair sees as vitally important to British interests that we easily dismiss? In 30 years' time, when documentaries are made of the Blair government with the benefit of hindsight and declassified documents, will his decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA in Iraq be vindicated as necessary or even correct?

I believe that Tony Blair has been an excellent Prime Minister, with a very good record in office. He has kept Britain prosperous and has made Britain more relevant on the world stage than any time since before Suez. I am sad to see him go. And I am very sure that in the years to come, with the benefit of hindsight and of declassification, we will (more or less) come to agree that his government was a good one for Britain.

United 300

Winner of the 2007 MTV Movie Awards Movie Spoof contest, it's a mash-up of United 93 and 300. You will either finds this hilarious or be deeply offended and disgusted by the idea. I personally loved it.

Letter to the Economist

Dear Sir,

I refer to your article on Confucius and Mr. Tan Boon Tee’s subsequent letter to The Economist. Mr Tan's letter demonstrates a commonly-held misconception about Confucius and his teachings. Confucius lived in a time of great political uncertainty and oppression, when monarchs held absolute power over life and death, and the values and ideas expressed in his philosophy have to be understood in the context of the times in which he lived. His famous ‘five relationships’ emphasize not only obedience by a subject to a ruler, but also the ruler’s responsibility to his people. He believed that if people became conscious of their responsibilities to each other, and followed good practices (‘ritual’) in their behaviour with each other, a harmonious society would result.

Sadly, Confucius’ teachings have been interpreted quite literally, perhaps in the same way that the pro-gun lobby in the USA interprets the second amendment. Confucius’ teachings are now routinely used to justify a strong paternalistic state and obedience to power, not least in places like Singapore. As a fellow Singaporean, I sympathize with Mr. Tan but I fear that Confucius, like many other philosophers and religious figures before him, has had his words interpreted to serve the purposes of those who would use them to justify their actions. As your article showed, Confucius is valued not for his inherent wisdom but as a way to justify the continued rule of the Chinese Communist Party. Rather than seek an inviolable text, I suggest we use it as a starting point for examining our own lives.

Yours Faithfully,

PJ Thum
Oxford