Conversations with History: Niall Ferguson

Host Harry Kreisler welcomes British historian Niall Ferguson for a discussion of the dynamics of money and power in international politics, the British Empire, and the U.S. role in world affairs. Series: "Conversations with History" [6/2004] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 8635]

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Britain
• history
• international
• politics
• United
• States

[AbtinX]

Your ambition in life should be finding the man who made the intro-music. That man has gotta be insane or something

[8data]

history is the best subject

[AbtinX]

@goblins87 thank you! 

[goblins87]

@AbtinX

His name is Philip Freihofner, oboist and composer. From his profile on American Composers Forum: "First music sale (1984) was a theme for talk-show series: "Conversations with History" made with a monophonic synth (CAT) & Roland Echoplex."

[plainstudman]

@turkeylad i am guessing u r from turkey....hm you are the one to talk???

[plainstudman]

@turkeylad which empire are you referring to... the monogl empire where individual soldiers would get orders to kill 400 enemies each and wipe out 5 million tungus nation and wipe out over 30 milion, over 30% of chinese popluation, or the qin dynasty who came to power by slaughtering hundreds of thousand of enemies POWS and killing over 3 million to make the great wall, or the british empire and america which ahs given the world railroads, highways, internet, medicine etc etc.

[turkeylad]

This man is a totally unquestioning product of his Unionist Protestant right-wing background. Everything he does is made to fit that frame. He's a Bourdieuan nightmare. These guys have and always wii lick the Imperialists' collective ass. I bet you he's over-sensitive to criticism.

[KiAdoMundi]

Why can't he recognise that his name is Niall and not Neil?

[cityflyguy]

I believe that in the Empire other cultures were of great curiosity to those British, and were not necesarily dismissed as worthless, non christian, non British, non European etc. Just look at Indian born Kipling and his affection for India, the way in which members of the Raj were quite happy to marry Indian women and have children. That cultural respect and integration I dont believe has been as widespread in other Empires. Could the same be said of a US official in Vietnam, Afghan, Taiwan?

[cityflyguy]

The Empire brought stability, it had the ability to allow moral questioning of its actions, it was flexible enough to take onboard these criticism. One example being the abolition of slavery. It also was as much about diplomacy as it was taking by force, if the British were to meet strong resistance they would happily welcome that resisting party. Whether it was the Gurkhas or the Maroons among countless others, if you put up a good fight you would be respected and offered a fair deal.

[cityflyguy]

The point Niall makes is that the British Empire was no worse than preceeding empires or the following empires/world powers. And should be viewed fairly with comparison. Would the sub continent that became India/Pakistan of been better off under the rule of the many constantyly warring factions of emperors, tribal and religous leaders? And, with the subcontinent now being partitioned (and the huge death toll that the split resulted in, and still adding to) is it a recipe for disaster?

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!