Apart from the bias that any historical account will bring, especially when
written for a particular purpose, I'd like to say: what a load of rubbish!
Considering that many people studying for their citizenship tests are
learners of English, to be confronted by passages like this will not
engender understanding, but encourage rote learning with little, if any,
comprehension. Which may be a good thing considering...!
----Original Message Follows----
From: Rachel Grahame <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Teaching Basic British to Foreign Students
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:51:42 +0100
"Page 32: Cultural influences
For many indigenous peoples in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and
elsewhere, the British empire often brought more regular, acceptable and
impartial systems of law and order than many had experienced under their
own rulers, or under alien rulers other than Europeans. The spread of the
English language helped unite disparate tribal areas that gradually came to
see themselves as nations. Public health, peace, and access to education
can mean more to ordinary people than precisely who are their rulers. One
legacy of empire was that when nationalism grew most of those who first
claimed self-government did so in terms resting heavily on European, on
specifically British, ideas of liberty and representative government."
I found the above quoted on the Guardian website, and am almost speechless
- a rare occurrence. The TSO on-line bookshop says that it was amended in
October 2005, and includes a chapter on the 'Role of women'. Surprisingly
they do not mention anything about the role of men - presumably this is
considered to have too little cultural variation to be worth mentioning.
(gnashing of teeth)