I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I saw him in about 1984 playing with Roger Waters. Half the set was pisspoor RW solo stuff, but the other half of the set was 1970s Floyd, and worth seeing.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
Not while the war with Imperial Japan was still ongoing. Although they were clearly a great power by that point
Samoa - Chile. Chile played well throughout. Samoa were rusty when they started but soon picked up. With another full match they will be back to their best. Will cause Argentina and England problems.
Wales - Portugal. Portugal were excellent in loose play - and at lineout - but Wales (second team) ground out their bonus point win. Nothing to see here regarding Wales chance v Oz.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
"On 5 August 1976, Clapton provoked an uproar when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham. Visibly intoxicated on stage, Clapton voiced his support for the right-wing British politician Enoch Powell. He addressed the audience as follows:
Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
He was indeed. School had parts of the tapestries that were hung for their wedding in Winchester Cathedral for some reason.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but only in the Camilla sense.
Most definitely not only in the Camilla sense!
In fact before Victoria, the husbands of the majority of the married queens regnant had been kings.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
In the olden days, everyone listened to Radio 1, which played all varieties of popular music, including oldies, and everyone watched Top of the Pops. This meant that even if you did not like particular artists or genres, you knew of them. As channels multiplied, this stopped being true, and now you can curate your own Spotify playlist entirely of tracks you grew up with, and never hear anything new or even different at all.
ETA it is much the same for broadcast television and, more worryingly, for news and current affairs. Now each side can have its own facts.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
"On 5 August 1976, Clapton provoked an uproar when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham.[194] Visibly intoxicated on stage, Clapton voiced his support for the right-wing British politician Enoch Powell.[195][196][197] He addressed the audience as follows:
Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white![198]"
I do prefer the lyrics to “Bell Bottom Blues”, TBH
Have just seen the poll in Mid Beds. Con 20 / Lab 20 / LD 15. As I said previously, whichever party is polling in the lead needs to be given the run. LibDems need to back off. We're trying to remove the Tories, not empower them.
Many thanks - not something I can say but I hope will be remembered when the LibDems are second in a constituency.
The party rules on that front are stupid. You can't say it. Even when we're the contender to remove the Tory and a Labour vote only helps prop up their hopes of clinging on.
Do we want to smash this monstrous party or not? Needs co-operation, and both Labour party rules and some activists are utterly pig-headed on the subject.
Labour and the Lib Dems are no more allies than Labour and the SNP. The fact that these parties are all on the centre-left makes them rivals, not bedfellows.
Define allies. We have a common enemy. Listen to the Ed Davey interview by Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. His mission is to beat the Tories. That means putting Labour into office - not that they will get unconditional support, but that they are the preferred choice in a duopoly.
They have a common enemy, but they are also enemies to each other.
The Labour Party clearly understood this, from the early 1900’s. The Liberals never did.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
I think that is on the button. A nostalgic society reflects our median age, but also a lack of interest in the future. Both Brexit and MAGA fall in this trap.
Not a completely new phenomenon, the Monday Club was originally founded to oppose the decolonisation of our Empire in the early 1960s. There have always been reactionaries.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
"On 5 August 1976, Clapton provoked an uproar when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham.[194] Visibly intoxicated on stage, Clapton voiced his support for the right-wing British politician Enoch Powell. He addressed the audience as follows:
Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"
I think that was also the time he was drinking three bottles of brandy a day.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I'm not sure I agree.
The bar to a successful criminal conviction for sexual assault and rape are, rightly, very high as they result in loss of liberty. In many cases the evidence is his word against hers, as the defence is about whether or not consent was given rather than whether the act occured (much easier to prove).
I don't think victims of sexual assault should be prevented from making accusations publicly, just because they have not achieved a criminal conviction.
People can choose who they wish to believe. And Brand can choose whether or not to sue for libel.
I didn't say they should be banned. But as I read the story there has been no attempt to raise these matters with the police. I realise journalists and TV companies want to write compelling stories. But why haven't the police been involved?
Rape is a very serious crime. It should be investigated and if there is evidence people should be charged and tried. Otherwise innocent until proven guilty becomes a nonsense and someone wrongly labelled a rapist - not all of whom can afford to sue for libel - can face horrible consequences.
While that's true, it's also the case that not a few sexual predators have been found guilty of criminal acts, after victims have come forward after such reporting. It's not as easy matter either way,
The Times and C4 reportedly contacted Brand over a week ago to seek a response from him before any publication.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse ...Brand, the actor and comedian, had already moved to deny what he called “very serious criminal allegations” on Friday night. In a video posted online, he said he had received correspondence from a media company and a newspaper detailing the claims; this is standard practice for journalists preparing to report serious allegations about a named entity...
The suggestion from Brand that this is being done because he's competition to their business models seems to me absurd, FWIW.
The Russell brand story is in the Times. Tallies with what I’ve heard in one instance but is way more detailed over many more years
Doesn’t look good for him
However he is no longer reliant on big publishers or broadcasters. He just needs an online presence. TwitterX can give him that if YouTube pulls the plug
Then it comes down to whether there will be court proceedings. An interesting test of modern media power (leaving aside the morality)
I find this troubling. The allegations - if true - are horrible and any man committing them should face the legal consequences. But if not true a man's character has been trashed.
A failing criminal justice system and trial by media are not a happy combination.
I have never liked Brand, and am not entirely surprised at the allegations, but this should not be a trial by media, and it is hard to justify a special despatches.
"Show biz star is a sexual predator" is hardly a shock after all.
Unpleasant attitude that seems awfully close to that anaesthetists letter a few days ago.
Whether something's a shock or not, sexual assault is still wrong.
And the only way we're going to have women be treated with respect is if these concerns get aired, even when they're not shocking. Until they are.
I have no problem with such a portfolio of evidence being handed over to appropriate police forces and courts, but a trial by media risks prejudicing a fair trial.
That's upto the alleged victims, which do they prefer?
Too often victims are "encouraged" to keep the abuse quiet or dismissed or not taken seriously, and the same perpetrator abuses many people none of whom make the connection as they're all staying quiet.
The Me Too movement did a good job by letting people know they're not alone. That's a good thing, not something to be frowned upon.
When the allegations about Weinstein, or Harris, or other predators made it to light it encouraged other victims to step forward. That is a good thing.
Sunlight is one of the best disinfectants.
Just out of interest, imagine you are in the following situation. You are accused of sexual assault at work and have been found to have engaged in gross misconduct. You need to go in to a hearing to decide if you are to be dismissed. The detail is that you are accused of brushing against a female colleague inappropriately, even though you have no recollection of doing it. How do you defend yourself?
Nitpicking but if you've been found to have engaged in gross misconduct then the hearing has already happened, I assume you mean you're accused of gross misconduct?
I would probably say that I have no recollection of it happening and I'm sorry if it did, and it would have been unintentional if it happened because I don't recall it.
And if I were on a disciplinary panel then without further evidence to say otherwise I'd probably accept that.
OTOH then if it turns out that dozens of people come forward with the same accusation, then that puts meat on the bones and dismissal is probably the correct option. Which is why people should be encouraged to step forward, because if they do it can encourage others to realise they're not alone.
Counter-interest, imagine you are in the following situation.
You are a young woman [or man, it happens to men too] who has been sexually assaulted at work, by someone senior. You bring forward allegations via the appropriate channels but those get dismissed out of hand by people who don't want to hear it, or deal with it. What should you do?
The scenario I described above did actually happen to someone I know - he responded in the way that you said you would - he didn't lose his job but he got a final warning and moved to another team, so he (and his family) was put through quite considerable stress and disadvantage. The point though was that it later turned out that it wasn't the 'victim' who made the complaint, it turned out that they were oblivious to the alleged encounter - it was someone who observed it happening - and who knows what motivations they really had in pursuing the complaint.
It seems obvious to me that the guy should never have got a final warning over this, it should never have been a disciplinary matter. But it is the product of a certain zeitgeist which can have negative as well as positive consequences.
Regarding your counter example, I said in another post that I think the fundamental problem is the difficult of obtaining convictions to the given the way the law is written and the criminal standard of proof. Nothing has changed in this respect in the last 20 years. This is not a point that often gets made in this debate.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
We didn't 'roam free' - even in the days of Palmerston and 'Civis Romanus Sum', we were quite careful which enemies we picked. We were quite happy to bombard China, but we never seriously got into it with the USA, in fact after the US Civil War we compensated the Union for the damage done by the Alabama. We weren't omnipotent, and we were probably the better world power for it.
Sure, but the superpower USA was restricted by the USSR and then China, and Britain had to at least be mindful of the USA and France, and so on
A superpower is not a hyper power. A hyperpower is a power able to exert military and political decisions, globally, without a thought for any other nation or agency. It has surely never existed, and that’s a good thing, it would be disastrous for humankind
Your latter description fits the USA between the end of the USSR and the rise of China (and a bit India) quite well I'd say. Look at the meagre compensation paid by Union Carbide to Indians for the Bhopal oil rig disaster. I don't think the US could really get away with that these days, but it could then. Those Indians were just insignificant collateral damage.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Ancient Rome were the first superpower.
They were not a global superpower - and there are several previous civilisations with equivalent regional power to Rome.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
"On 5 August 1976, Clapton provoked an uproar when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham.[194] Visibly intoxicated on stage, Clapton voiced his support for the right-wing British politician Enoch Powell. He addressed the audience as follows:
Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"
I think that was also the time he was drinking three bottles of brandy a day.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
By 1900 the USA was the world's largest economy. One of several reasons that it drew so many immigrants.
Largest single. Not vs UK/Empire which was an interlinked ecosystem
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
I think Imperial Spain, from about 1500 to about 1790, was a superpower. It ruled a vast territory, and made great gains in 1783. The collapse of Spanish power, over the course of 40 years, was staggering.
I’d class the Ottomans, up till 1770, and China, up to about 1820, as superpowers.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
Not sure where you're getting Florence from - they were very influential culturally but didn't even control Italy, let alone Europe more widely.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
Are we now to be subjected to days of Russell Brand coverage ? And as for the alleged story of the year all I can say is zzzzz!
Talk about underwhelming.
If you are really unlucky it will be weeks of coverage....i presume the 90 mins on Ch4 will be more than just Brand / what Times has already published, otherwise seems a bit of a pointlessly long programme (a bit like one of Brand's monologues about the global elites running the world).
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Well absolutely yes, considering he had recorded stuff by Robert Johnston from the 1930s one of the greatest blues guitarist recording stuff from one of the earlier greatest blues guitarist. So the 1930s quote is just so apt.
Cream's live recording of Johnston's Crossroads is fabulous. I can't remember who it was but one of the leading pop groups on hearing Cream thought there was no point in carrying on.
Go on now tell me you lot have never heard of Cream, the first supergroup.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The 1960s had moments of Edwardian or Pre-War nostalgia - Your Mother Should Know. Or maybe it is simply a fondness for the “nursery”.
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
There was a period of 1950's revival around the mid-80's, and consciously conservative, in fact, in the Reaganite US ( see Back to The Future ) , but the '80s was still confident of its own aesthetic ; there was still something new to be made, the future was still on the horizon.
By the late 1980's there was a huge backlash against the aesthetic of earlier in the decade, and a huge emerging culture of recycling older styles in popular music, which hadn't been there before. This also coincided with a loss of confidence on the left, which often looks most to the future, both intellectually from postmodernism, and politically from the end of the Warsaw Pact and any apparent alternative to capitalism. It might sound counter-intuitive, but these things do feed into popular culture and the reduced sense of any optimism, or the unpredictable.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
I would dispute China - they are only a regional superpower in my view
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
I hope you aren't suggesting drill rap might be a bit of a step down in quality of music....i heard on the grape vine that naughty scamp Sean Thomas got in similar trouble recently for suggesting French cuisine had also gone downhill.
King Charles 'flew UFO to save lives' in bizarre 'secret military mission' EXCLUSIVE: Piloting a Tesla-powered UFO craft, bizarre claims have suggested King Charles III saved lives during his extraction of a 'UFO craft' from a base in Canada, according to a diver who worked with him https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/king-charles-flew-ufo-save-30912451
It looks like the Russell Brand claims are published to distract us from the real news. Wake up sheeple!
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
I think Imperial Spain, from about 1500 to about 1790, was a superpower. It ruled a vast territory, and made great gains in 1783. The collapse of Spanish power, over the course of 40 years, was staggering.
I’d class the Ottomans, up till 1770, and China, up to about 1820, as superpowers.
Spain certainly, as it had genuine global reach for a time, even if there were a few corners of the globe outside of its access. China might have done so too - but chose not to.
Prior to the Spanish empire, there wasn't really any equivalent.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
I doubt if either the Spanish or English nobility would have tolerated one monarch ruling both countries. Ultimately, I think Philip would have given the Burgundian lands to his son by Mary, with Spain and Italy passing either to another son, or a Hapsburg relative.
King Charles 'flew UFO to save lives' in bizarre 'secret military mission' EXCLUSIVE: Piloting a Tesla-powered UFO craft, bizarre claims have suggested King Charles III saved lives during his extraction of a 'UFO craft' from a base in Canada, according to a diver who worked with him https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/king-charles-flew-ufo-save-30912451
It looks like the Russell Brand claims are published to distract us from the real news. Wake up sheeple!
The legalisation of drugs in Canada is having some predictable consequences....
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
King Consort - Mary wanted to make him King but was strongly advised not to.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
There was a period of 1950's revival around the mid-80's, and consciously conservative, in fact, in the Reaganite US ( see Back to The Future ) , but the '80s was still confident of its own aesthetic ; there was still something new to be made, the future was still on the horizon.
By the late 1980's there was a huge backlash against the aesthetic of earlier in the decade, and a huge emerging culture of recycling older styles in popular music, which hadn't been there before. This also coincided with a loss of confidence on the left, which often looks most to the future, both intellectually from postmodernism, and politically from the end of the Warsaw Pact and any apparent alternative to capitalism. It might sound counter-intuitive, but these things do feed into popular culture and the reduced sense of any optimism, or the unpredictable.
That's a very interesting theory, but I've always found it more predictably cyclical. We always detest and cringe at the recent past, then we readjust our view and develop a nostalgia for it with the passage of time.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
I hope you aren't suggesting drill rap might be a bit of a step down in quality of music....i heard on the grape vine that naughty scamp Sean Thomas got in similar trouble recently for suggesting French cuisine had also gone downhill.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
Have you ever listened to “Layla and Other Love Songs”?
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
We didn't 'roam free' - even in the days of Palmerston and 'Civis Romanus Sum', we were quite careful which enemies we picked. We were quite happy to bombard China, but we never seriously got into it with the USA, in fact after the US Civil War we compensated the Union for the damage done by the Alabama. We weren't omnipotent, and we were probably the better world power for it.
Sure, but the superpower USA was restricted by the USSR and then China, and Britain had to at least be mindful of the USA and France, and so on
A superpower is not a hyper power. A hyperpower is a power able to exert military and political decisions, globally, without a thought for any other nation or agency. It has surely never existed, and that’s a good thing, it would be disastrous for humankind
Is this Dispatches programme going to be 90 mins of Wussselly Verbosity Brand allegations, or do we think the Times got that part of a wider story and there are others?
I suspect a fair part of the story will be protection of Brand by agents and others, when it was all a bit of an open secret, reminiscent of other cases.
Unfortunately, there are industries where the instinct isn't to stop and report sexual abuse but to manage and prevent its disclosure. That has certainly been the case in the past in religion and education (one hopes that has changed to a significant extent but we'll see). Progress seems to have been slow in entertainment.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
Talking of singing bare and exposed, my life has never been the same since the disappointment of finding out, and not being present at the recording of Eternal Flame by the Bangles as Susanah Hoffs recorded her vocals in the nude (for reasons best known to her).
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
The genius of Joni's song, as Robert Wyatt has said, is she now sings it fifty years later an octave lower and the whole song is imbibed with new depth and meaning from the relentless passage of life and time.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
I hope you aren't suggesting drill rap might be a bit of a step down in quality of music....i heard on the grape vine that naughty scamp Sean Thomas got in similar trouble recently for suggesting French cuisine had also gone downhill.
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
Congratulations, you've accomplished a First!
You're the first old man in history to be complaining about what young people listen to, and insisting that his day's music was better.
No old man before you has ever done that. Well done for this ground-breaking achievement.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
Not sure where you're getting Florence from - they were very influential culturally but didn't even control Italy, let alone Europe more widely.
You could also argue that effectively the Netherlands and Britain underwent a tactical corporate merger with the Glorious Revolution.
Even on the latest Scotland only polls, the swing should be enough for Labour to gain Rutherglen.
On current UK wide polls the Conservatives would narrowly hold Tamworth or Mid Bedfordshire however, albeit Tamworth had a Boris bounce and its council went Labour in May and both those seats would go Labour on the Selby by election swing
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The 1960s had moments of Edwardian or Pre-War nostalgia - Your Mother Should Know. Or maybe it is simply a fondness for the “nursery”.
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
Maybe it's as simple as recording technology.
When music from the 60s to the 80s paid tribute to earlier times, it had to be indirect hat-tipping. Because the actual recordings were rare and rubbish.
Whereas now, we have perfect digital recordings, so what's left for the music writers of today to do? Child 2 (aged 10) has just discovered Duran Duran and is entranced.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
England would presumably have fought along with Spain to suppress the Dutch revolt (and likely succeeded). Then it would have fought with Spain and Austria to crush the Protestant powers in 1618. Three Catholic Hapsburg powers would have ensured the triumph of the Counter-Reformation.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
Under Spanish rule and firmly Roman Catholic again and respectful of Papal authority, the sibling of Philip III of Spain would have been English King
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
I would dispute China - they are only a regional superpower in my view
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
'Global' is an unfair qualifier before 1495 anyway.
Imperial Rome was undoubtedly the superpower of it's time; the Mongol Empire of the 13th century similarly was a superpower imo.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Ancient Rome were the first superpower.
They were not a global superpower - and there are several previous civilisations with equivalent regional power to Rome.
They were not a global superpower, but they were a superpower.
The UK was probably the first global superpower (Spain never really got going in Asia AFAIK) but Rome were a superpower for its day.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
Oh right, the Eras tour is Taylor Swift's global tour. The final night is in London and I've heard from industry people it's going to be a massive epic party because she's not going to tour like this for at least 2-3 years. My wife is a huge, huge Taylor Swift fan, she's been listening to Taylor Swift for at least as long as we've been together (11 years), her song Love Story was a contender for our first dance song (we went with Heartbeats by José González fwiw).
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Ancient Rome were the first superpower.
They were not a global superpower - and there are several previous civilisations with equivalent regional power to Rome.
They were not a global superpower, but they were a superpower.
The UK was probably the first global superpower (Spain never really got going in Asia AFAIK) but Rome were a superpower for its day.
"From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as part of the Mexico-based Viceroyalty of New Spain until the independence of the Mexican Empire from Spain in 1821. This resulted in direct Spanish control during a period of governmental instability there. The Philippines was under direct royal governance from 1821 to 1898."
I met a 26 year old teacher today who hadn't a clue who Eric Clapton was/is. God do I feel old.
He peaked a half century ago. Who in the Eighties at the age of 26 could name the music stars of the 1930's?
Yes but we are talking about Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton for goodness sake.
I'm in my 40s and Eric Clapton has never been big in my adult lifetime. I know him, from the prior generation, not my own.
Why should those who are almost another generation removed necessarily know about him now? Do you know the artists of the 1930s?
If you're old enough to remember Clapton from when he was current then its not that you feel old, its that you are old.
Absolute bollocks.
In the 90s he was top of the charts with “Tears in Heaven”, “Unplugged”, and shagging Sheryl Crowe.
Anyone 40 and over should know who he is.
Probably everyone else, too, given some of his recorded legacy. Obviously nowadays he’s the definition of gammon-rock.
He’s also a phenomenal artist from the Golden Age of Pop Music, from the Bluesbreakers to Cream to the Yardbirds to Layla to the immense solo efforts. Not knowing about him is just an intellectual failure
I’ve been travelling around rural/regional France for the last week and nearly all the music they play, even to kids, is from that era, the Golden Age: 1965-2005
It must be like the Renaissance was for Italians in about 1703. “Oh stop wanking on about Michelangelo! And I’ve never even HEARD of fucking Raphael!”
Congratulations, you've accomplished a First!
You're the first old man in history to be complaining about what young people listen to, and insisting that his day's music was better.
No old man before you has ever done that. Well done for this ground-breaking achievement.
Yes, no one has ever accused me of that before. I have gained new respect for your intriguing insights
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
Oh right, the Eras tour is Taylor Swift's global tour. The final night is in London and I've heard from industry people it's going to be a massive epic party because she's not going to tour like this for at least 2-3 years. My wife is a huge, huge Taylor Swift fan, she's been listening to Taylor Swift for at least as long as we've been together (11 years), her song Love Story was a contender for our first dance song (we went with Heartbeats by José González fwiw).
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
I would dispute China - they are only a regional superpower in my view
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
'Global' is an unfair qualifier before 1495 anyway.
Imperial Rome was undoubtedly the superpower of it's time; the Mongol Empire of the 13th century similarly was a superpower imo.
Yes for their time but Rome's Empire did not stretch beyond Europe, north Africa and the Middle East and the Mongol Empire did not stretch beyond Asia and Russia and far Eastern Europe.
Now that may have been most of the civilised world at the time but it was not the global empires as the British and Spanish and to a lesser extent French empires developed
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
Weird isn't it that he is considered one of the greatest guitarists of all time. I wonder why?
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Taylor Swift is fab! I love her
She’s one of the last of the fashioned pop stars who writes good tunes, with memorable lyrics, that actualiy say something meaningful, and don’t drone on and on like a 6 year old about hos bitches drugs and motherfuckers, and she is also rather attractive and she plays it herself
She would have been a middling talent in the glut of the 60s-90s, but with today’s meagre offering, she is huge. Like, say, Canaletto re the Renaissance
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Mid Beds update. I've just received an email from the LibDems. They think the latest poll is great! Compared to the June poll it shows Labour have "stalled", adding just 0.8% whereas the LibDems have added 6.5%.
Frankly, looking at their bar chart it doesn't matter, as the Tories have added 4.8%...
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
It didn't stop Scotland becoming largely Protestant.
Perhaps we would have had an earlier civil war and a Presbyterian church as they did.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
On terminology: In the US, books for teenagers used to be called "juveniles". For example, the series Robert Heinlein wrote for Scribners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein_bibliography (I think some of them, for example, "Farmer in the Sky", "The Star Beast", and "Have Space Suit, Will Travel", are among his best works.)
Now they would be called books for "young adults".
Neither seems exactly right, but I can't think of a good alternative.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
I would dispute China - they are only a regional superpower in my view
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
'Global' is an unfair qualifier before 1495 anyway.
Imperial Rome was undoubtedly the superpower of it's time; the Mongol Empire of the 13th century similarly was a superpower imo.
It's not 'unfair' - rather a deferent category which didn't previously exist.
As an aside, I was surprised to discover that the relatively small tourist city in S Korea I'm currently visiting, was, as the capital of the unified Silla kingdom, for a time the fourth largest city in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Silla
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Taylor Swift is fab! I love her
She’s one of the last of the fashioned pop stars who writes good tunes, with memorable lyrics, that actualiy say something meaningful, and don’t drone on and on like a 6 year old about hos bitches drugs and motherfuckers, and she is also rather attractive and she plays it herself
She would have been a middling talent in the glut of the 60s-90s, but with today’s meagre offering, she is huge. Like, say, Canaletto re the Renaissance
Yes, quite chuffed with getting the tickets. Though I'm not her biggest fan I think this is going to be one of those tours that people will talk about for a long time so glad to be going and have that experience. I know a few people from work who have been to it in the US and they've all said it's incredible 3h long set, she does all of the big hitter classics, all of the crowd pleasers and generally gives the fans what they want.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Ancient Rome were the first superpower.
They were not a global superpower - and there are several previous civilisations with equivalent regional power to Rome.
They were not a global superpower, but they were a superpower.
The UK was probably the first global superpower (Spain never really got going in Asia AFAIK) but Rome were a superpower for its day.
"From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as part of the Mexico-based Viceroyalty of New Spain until the independence of the Mexican Empire from Spain in 1821. This resulted in direct Spanish control during a period of governmental instability there. The Philippines was under direct royal governance from 1821 to 1898."
What you saw after 1790 was not so much the decline of Spain as the collapse of Spain. Three men, Carlos IV, Ferdinand VII, and Manuel Godoy, wrecked the place.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The 1960s had moments of Edwardian or Pre-War nostalgia - Your Mother Should Know. Or maybe it is simply a fondness for the “nursery”.
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
Maybe it's as simple as recording technology.
When music from the 60s to the 80s paid tribute to earlier times, it had to be indirect hat-tipping. Because the actual recordings were rare and rubbish.
Whereas now, we have perfect digital recordings, so what's left for the music writers of today to do? Child 2 (aged 10) has just discovered Duran Duran and is entranced.
Definitely true pre-1925 or so: you recorded on wax by shouting into a horn. After 1925 the electrical method meant the quality of recordings was no longer audibly limited for recorded live performances: radio and speaker tech being the common limited factor. You still couldn't multitrack without repeatedly recording over the same wax, though.
Then after the war (no joke), Bing Crosby paid to convert a looted Nazi tape recorder, gave one of the first ones to Les Paul, and suddenly there were clean multitrack recordings.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
Try out for size his guitar work on his version of JJ Cale's "Cocaine".
His politics may be less wholesome. He used to be seen at the Hawthorns occasionally during the "Three Degrees" years. It was said he was a Chelsea fan (figures) but after a Playboy interview which hinted at a less than positive attitude to (shall we say) the Windrush generation, following Cunningham, Regis and Batson at West Brom was his redemption. See his Baggies scarf on his wrist on the back of the Slowhand album.
I have seen his very nice house in Antigua, so maybe my story is simply. urban legend
Comments
This will be a very very good day or three to bury bad news a al Jo Moore.
HS2 Oasis phase cancelled?
Pensions lock re-engineered?
Rwanda abandoned?
and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Samoa - Chile. Chile played well throughout. Samoa were rusty when they started but soon picked up. With another full match they will be back to their best. Will cause Argentina and England problems.
Wales - Portugal. Portugal were excellent in loose play - and at lineout - but Wales (second team) ground out their bonus point win. Nothing to see here regarding Wales chance v Oz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Clapton#Political_opinions
"On 5 August 1976, Clapton provoked an uproar when he spoke out against increasing immigration during a concert in Birmingham. Visibly intoxicated on stage, Clapton voiced his support for the right-wing British politician Enoch Powell. He addressed the audience as follows:
Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands. So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country. I don't want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch's our man. I think Enoch's right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism. It's much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans don't belong here, we don't want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don't want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. This is Great Britain, a white country, what is happening to us, for fuck's sake? Throw the wogs out! Keep Britain white!"
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
In fact before Victoria, the husbands of the majority of the married queens regnant had been kings.
ETA it is much the same for broadcast television and, more worryingly, for news and current affairs. Now each side can have its own facts.
The Labour Party clearly understood this, from the early 1900’s. The Liberals never did.
Not a completely new phenomenon, the Monday Club was originally founded to oppose the decolonisation of our Empire in the early 1960s. There have always been reactionaries.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Florence
Spain
Netherlands
France
Britain
USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
It's not as easy matter either way,
The Times and C4 reportedly contacted Brand over a week ago to seek a response from him before any publication.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/russell-brand-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-emotional-abuse
...Brand, the actor and comedian, had already moved to deny what he called “very serious criminal allegations” on Friday night. In a video posted online, he said he had received correspondence from a media company and a newspaper detailing the claims; this is standard practice for journalists preparing to report serious allegations about a named entity...
The suggestion from Brand that this is being done because he's competition to their business models seems to me absurd, FWIW.
It seems obvious to me that the guy should never have got a final warning over this, it should never have been a disciplinary matter. But it is the product of a certain zeitgeist which can have negative as well as positive consequences.
Regarding your counter example, I said in another post that I think the fundamental problem is the difficult of obtaining convictions to the given the way the law is written and the criminal standard of proof. Nothing has changed in this respect in the last 20 years. This is not a point that often gets made in this debate.
@Keir_Starmer
·
7m
My Labour government will face the challenges of the future head on.
We will take decisive action to secure our borders, grow our economy and tackle climate change.
===
Not now Sir K - it is Russell Brand night.
I’d class the Ottomans, up till 1770, and China, up to about 1820, as superpowers.
Poland
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Brazil
Australia
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
Cream's live recording of Johnston's Crossroads is fabulous. I can't remember who it was but one of the leading pop groups on hearing Cream thought there was no point in carrying on.
Go on now tell me you lot have never heard of Cream, the first supergroup.
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
See here. She sings it LIVE, bare and exposed
https://youtu.be/4NdsnFZm0X4?si=3vrkaVDRP1TqPSXL
I believe we will look back on this the way we now look back on Bernini’s sculptures
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
By the late 1980's there was a huge backlash against the aesthetic of earlier in the decade, and a huge emerging culture of recycling older styles in popular music, which hadn't been there before. This also coincided with a loss of confidence on the left, which often looks most to the future, both intellectually from postmodernism, and politically from the end of the Warsaw Pact and any apparent alternative to capitalism. It might sound counter-intuitive, but these things do feed into popular culture and the reduced sense of any optimism, or the unpredictable.
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
EXCLUSIVE: Piloting a Tesla-powered UFO craft, bizarre claims have suggested King Charles III saved lives during his extraction of a 'UFO craft' from a base in Canada, according to a diver who worked with him
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/king-charles-flew-ufo-save-30912451
It looks like the Russell Brand claims are published to distract us from the real news. Wake up sheeple!
https://youtu.be/DeZL2FXkGqI?si=C10MVnthHIRyPzK3
China might have done so too - but chose not to.
Prior to the Spanish empire, there wasn't really any equivalent.
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
Unfortunately, there are industries where the instinct isn't to stop and report sexual abuse but to manage and prevent its disclosure. That has certainly been the case in the past in religion and education (one hopes that has changed to a significant extent but we'll see). Progress seems to have been slow in entertainment.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
You're the first old man in history to be complaining about what young people listen to, and insisting that his day's music was better.
No old man before you has ever done that. Well done for this ground-breaking achievement.
On current UK wide polls the Conservatives would narrowly hold Tamworth or Mid Bedfordshire however, albeit Tamworth had a Boris bounce and its council went Labour in May and both those seats would go Labour on the Selby by election swing
When music from the 60s to the 80s paid tribute to earlier times, it had to be indirect hat-tipping. Because the actual recordings were rare and rubbish.
Whereas now, we have perfect digital recordings, so what's left for the music writers of today to do? Child 2 (aged 10) has just discovered Duran Duran and is entranced.
Imperial Rome was undoubtedly the superpower of it's time; the Mongol Empire of the 13th century similarly was a superpower imo.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
The UK was probably the first global superpower (Spain never really got going in Asia AFAIK) but Rome were a superpower for its day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1565–1898)
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
🚨Latest Opinium @ObserverUK poll:
Labour holds 15 point lead:
- Labour: 41% (-1)
- Conserative: 26% (-2)
- Liberal Democrat: 11% (+2)
- SNP: 3% (nc)
- Plaid Cymru: 1% (+1)
- Green 7% (-1)
- Reform UK: 8% (nc)
- Other: 2% (nc)
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1703121580149055907
Now that may have been most of the civilised world at the time but it was not the global empires as the British and Spanish and to a lesser extent French empires developed
She’s one of the last of the fashioned pop stars who writes good tunes, with memorable lyrics, that actualiy say something meaningful, and don’t drone on and on like a 6 year old about hos bitches drugs and motherfuckers, and she is also rather attractive and she plays it herself
She would have been a middling talent in the glut of the 60s-90s, but with today’s meagre offering, she is huge. Like, say, Canaletto re the Renaissance
Frankly, looking at their bar chart it doesn't matter, as the Tories have added 4.8%...
ReformUK up 6% on 2019 for the Tories to squeeze however, as well as DKs
Perhaps we would have had an earlier civil war and a Presbyterian church as they did.
Now they would be called books for "young adults".
Neither seems exactly right, but I can't think of a good alternative.
As an aside, I was surprised to discover that the relatively small tourist city in S Korea I'm currently visiting, was, as the capital of the unified Silla kingdom, for a time the fourth largest city in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Silla
https://youtu.be/sc1DitLzFQk?si=JZeKFtvt0tz7QuqA
Then after the war (no joke), Bing Crosby paid to convert a looted Nazi tape recorder, gave one of the first ones to Les Paul, and suddenly there were clean multitrack recordings.
She thought she was Strong Enough and all she had to do was just Believe, but was no doubt thinking afterwards If I Could Turn Back Time?
His politics may be less wholesome. He used to be seen at the Hawthorns occasionally during the "Three Degrees" years. It was said he was a Chelsea fan (figures) but after a Playboy interview which hinted at a less than positive attitude to (shall we say) the Windrush generation, following Cunningham, Regis and Batson at West Brom was his redemption. See his Baggies scarf on his wrist on the back of the Slowhand album.
I have seen his very nice house in Antigua, so maybe my story is simply. urban legend