One. One South Indian businessman with small time enterprise in the Middle East told me that the British would be forced into recluse status in UAE social scenarios. For, they will not be able to bear our culture, which is now the overwhelming force in the open areas.
Two: A South Indian English teacher working as lecturer in a UAE University, coming from Indian lower middleclass parentage, told me: When you talk about England, you are talking about something that is on the verge of vanishing. In about 50 years time, there will be no England. It will be a small, insignificant state in Europe.
Three: Another thing he told: I have a few English colleagues. The lower staff here (Indian) sees them as very elegant and refined. Yet, these English colleagues of mine are not at ease with us. They exhibit a show of superiority; yet it is just a cloak to cover their (intimidated) inferiority.
Four: An article came in The Guardian: Who do the British think they are?Rather than belittling foreigners, the British should realise that their supposed moral superiority is a sham. Written by Peter Beaumount. It basically sees the British essentially as having a superiority complex, which is not in consonance with their small nation status.
Five: There was a news reported over here with a lot of focus, that the British schools were promoting the study of Mandarin (Chinese) in British as a means to get jobs in China.
Six: As I followed the Serial Killer issue in UK, I came across this link: Forensic psychologists tackle UK serial killer: in which I came across the following lines:
However, Wilson stresses that psychological profiling can still be a useful tool when used carefully. Most serial killers have been young men between 25 and 40 with typically male occupations that imply a high level of testosterone, such as mechanic, road worker or builder.
Their careers often have no obvious direction, and so they have little prospect of developing a sense of self-esteem or importance in their work. They are often socially and sexually inept and carry a large amount of anger towards others, who they perceive as responsible for their situation, Wilson says.
Seven: Then comes the use of UK military worldwide, wherein they crop up a lot of complaints, despite being a fantastically refined army when compared to most other armies. The most significant factor would be the seeing of British soldiers not showing the same amount of obsequiousness to local officials as others around make haste to show.
Even though, all these titbits may seem unconnected, there is a link between all of them. When I managed to envisage them some more than 15 years ago, these were all simply in the arena of hypothetical scenarios.
Actually in essence the undercurrent of all this exists in the English language and the social communication it enables. A very soft linking of human beings, that makes it most easy to interact and function. When this system is in superior place, everyone can function. The moment this system goes under, immediately this very simple system becomes a grating irritation to others both superior and inferior. The superior feels intimidated by the lack of tedious reverence, he perceives in all words and actions. The inferiors feel that certain persons of their own social status trying to exhibit a superior aura and mood.
All items I listed (one to seven) are really connected by a few unique words. How can an Englishman or woman work along with a lot of other language persons from feudal language nations, when the common language of interaction is not English, but some feudal language? Each action and word that comes from the others, for the Englishman to do would have to cross an extremely strong wall of inhibiting force. For, as far as the Englishman is concerned, he would not discern anything wrong or irritating or immoral in his actions and words. Yet, once the meaning of other language words dawn on him, he would find himself in a real quandary of whether to debase himself or not. Here it is a not case of a solitary debasement, but a case of all understandings changing remarkably.
England had an ambivalent international experience. One that of Englishmen living in colonial nations, and other nations, wherein they found that they can mix with the local populace only by keeping a inner area for themselves, wherein they couldnt allow the natives to enter. For, if the others entered here, then their own easygoing social relationships would get splintered.
The other experience was of the Englishman sitting at home in England, and visualising the world from books, writings, talks, videos and also from interaction with persons from other nations. Here the experience is a totally different one. Nothing of the reality gets filtered in, for any sentence, any word, any relation, and any other connected item, looses all its frills and denuded sentences and senses in an English mood only gets through.
There is an essential truth to be imbibed. That the world was in British hands not through any endeavour of the British army, but by the effort of immense persons from all around the world who assembled under the leadership of persons from England. Herein itself lies the magnificent mistake in using English soldiery in other nations.
The supremacy of English aura lies not in its arms or soldiery, but in its systems. The English leadership when they dismantled the colonies made the grand mistake of handing over the colonies to the same group of persons who they had displaced, and vanquished. These crooks naturally are making up for the lost time.
The real superiority of the English lies in its language and systems. Yet, this information does not come to the information of the common folk in the colonial nations. All they come to know from textbook is that England is a small nation of crooks who managed to swindle their nations into servitude. The tragedy here is that the Englishmen also are not very much aware of where their essential superiority lies.
When taking item Two: It comes back to the popular song: There shall always be an England, and England shall be free. Well, persons who have not been able to discern why England is different from Europe, have sort of duped the nation into believing that England is part of Europe. Actually, England is the place which withstood the onslaught of Europe for a thousand years, and still managed to survive and subdue.
Item three: When Englishmen need to function with feudal language equals, with a lot of subordinates from the feudal languages, they will essentially feel a sort of excessive submission being obtained by their feudal language equals. They may not be able to finger out why it is so. For, in their language they would be no understanding why this subordinate is to show so much servitude to the other man. Moreover, when they have friends or relatives who work in the same profession as these feudal language subordinates, a distressing feeling can come in. There is then a need for a special enclave where the original social relationships can be fostered.
Item four: There regularly come articles in the Indian Newspapers on the theme that the England still is not aware that it is a small nation. Naturally the writers of these articles belong to the upper middleclass or upper class, who naturally have an immense lot of Indians under them in feudal submission. England is only a minor fraction of many other nations geographical dimension. The language code over here adorns big with superior words, while small is packaged with lower level words. Now, to think of an ordinary Englishman coming and addressing even a small time Indian official with a poise of dignified politeness, is in the realm of the impossible for the local Indian to duplicate. While an ordinary Englishman may dare to address Tony Blair, as Mr. Blair, this very minor thing, possible for the smallest man over there, is in the realm of the sheer impossibility over here. Addressing a ManMohan Singh or a Vajpayee with a similar stance is a not possible, for there is no similar route in the local languages. In the vernacular over here, all communication is one-sided.
The same feature would be there when British men work in Russia, Turkey, Asian nations, Africa. It all depends on introduction. How England is introduced. If the introduction is as a small insignificant nation, the English stance would seem most comic. If the introduction is as a major power, the simple English stance would provoke reverence.
Item five: Studying Mandarin to manage China is a mistake. Englishmen should manage with English. He or she is safe, and the social environment becomes healthy. Remember the Opium wars; it was not really a war for selling opium, but for enforcing the English stance of communication. Formal historians may have missed this point. When Britain and America strove to arm the old communist China with technology and education, they should also have understood what they were feeding. It was and is essentially an epitome of feudal communication systems. The problems that existed there was not lack of technology or that of lack of education. The problems lie in their communication system. What the English West should have focused on was in the correction of this. There is no need to encourage systems that carry dangerous social codes, which can later gather strength and come after the benefactors.
Item six: I was following the serial murder story. I was fascinated by the wordings that I have quoted above. The mood that is seen in these lines is actually a real replica of the Indian social mentality. Over here the commercial drivers are seen by the middleclass, upper-class and officialdom as real repugnant sections of the society. The words used for them by the police, officialdom, teaching class and similar groups are of disdain. Some persons work for sometime in this profession, understands the suffocating social aura connected to it, and move out. Others feel comfy with it, and exist as a newly emerging caste.
Moreover, it is a reality over here that men from suppressed social classes over here are socially and sexually inept. For, the (indicant word) power is an essential aphrodisiac over here. Lack of it, very, very fantastically causes sexual ineptness, and also women (wives included) sees no enjoyment in submitting to timid-ified men.
The sense of the words seen in the psychologists article seems to suggest similar moods emerging over there in England. What amazes me is the frank way it is suggested, signifying that over there also society has sieved out persons to exist in a particular profession, which is seen as debased. Moreover, these persons are seen doomed to get contained in this level for eternity. This, according to me, is the starting point of caste system, which has its codes of creation in the language. Is the Indian social mood spreading over there? It need not mean that Englishmen speak feudal languages, but the mood that it creates is ticking over there. In actuality the meanness of the words are of much more debasing power than many racist words like ;****** etc.
Item Seven: the essentials have been discussed above.
This reaches us back to item no. four: In all its international endeavours, UK is missing on one item. The essence of British superiority is not that they conquered a great part of the world (they did not, the world literally swam into their possession), not that England always wins the last battle, not that it is a financial power, not that British citizens have a natural feel of superior self-confidence, not that Britannia ruled the waves, not that what RAF acted out during the Battle of Britain was a sort of surrealistic sporting passion (the same spirit I have seen delineated in The Scarlet Pimpernel) which in any other nation may be described as pure idiotism, and childish daring, not that English townships are considered to be clean and tidy, not that English social behaviour is nice (yet seen as irritating when seen from certain anomalous social positions in other nations) not in any of these things; but in the why of it.
What has to be defined and projected is the essential difference of English social communication that makes all this a reality. And why England can still take the leadership to bring in this positive input to other nations. Not with guns and mortar, but by capturing the popular focus of leadership in untidy nations. What is required is a sense of invincible courage to say that English systems are better.
