h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That was to Ben.
For the Navy, see Alex's Uni Proj:
A10831529 etc
(another subject well covered already)

Two major reasons it still has major influence today are that it's the home of the English language, and the ancestral home of the United States of America.

Reminds me of a story a good friend of mine tells.

He was in Atlanta for a meeting and while partaking of a few cool glasses of the gnat's urine the septics call beer one of the locals asked him where he came from he answered I'm English but live in Trinidad now.

The local thought for a few seconds and came back with "Trinidad. wasn't that one of those old English colonies?" to which my friend replied "Yes just like America"

Result. End of conversation and back to drinking.

Could it also be to do with its very large surface area exposed to the sea for its size. i.e. it's an *island* with all the resources and cultural benefits already mentioned. If everything else about Britain's history was identical, but it was land-locked and missing all the sea-related history, would we be anywhere near as important?

There are many countries bigger than us yes, but are there many island countries with such a large land-mass to shore ratio as us? This basically means we have a vast number of ports available to us for trading, warring etc.

<> RF

In Patrick O'Brian's Master & Commander series, this is discussed fairly often, and the most common explanation is that the French spent a lot of time cooped in port as a result of blockades. When the Frenchies had spent a bit of time at sea they fairly quickly came up to a reasonable standard. Might even be true.

England consolidated as a nation pretty early, there was a recognisably English state in the 900s, and that's never been lost, even through the Norman Conquest. There hasn't been a civil war for nearly 400 years and no major civil unrest for centuries. England has had a stability few countries can match and that's given stable institutions a chance to develop.

We were also pretty lucky that Henry VIII was never satisfied with his wives: the breach from Rome gave us a reason to take on one of the superpowers of the time. Conflict, when not fought on your own soil, can be a boon for research and organisation.

Also, the UK isn't a particularly small nation: there's 61 million of us, making us the 4th most populous European nation.

Interesting comments here.

Pin, my history lessons stopped at 1066 and restarted again in 1485 so I know bleep all about the period you're asking about.

The impression I have, though, is that England in 1065 was no more nasty, brutish and short than the rest of Europe. In fact Saxon England was relatively rich, literate, well governed and civilised.

My knowledge of history is virtually nil, but my guess would have been that England's wealth and power stems from its early adoption of capitalism? And this came about because it just happened (by chance?) to get to the industrial revolution first, building up its capital and then investing it around the world, turning its economy into a primarily financial one (which to a certain extent it still is). Well, that's one idea, but as I say - not very good on history, so tell me why I'm wrong.

"there was a recognisably English state in the 900s...no major civil unrest for centuries"

Very true. An unstated (because it's not politically correct, even though it's provably factually correct) but related thing is that there was no culturally significant immigration to this country between the Norman invasion and the end of the second world war, in large part due to our status as an island with an effective navy. That isn't to say the culture didn't change, obviously, but what change there was came entirely from within. That kind of cultural continuity is very rare globally.

Mrs. Zen's list of natural resources and advantages was good, but omitted some pretty important ones, like

- iron
- salt
- graphite
- lead
- temperate weather
- tectonic stability, despite our geological diversity

We're actually, now, a long, long way from any unstable tectonic boundary, the practical upshot of which is that unlike many of the other cradles of empires (e.g. Italy, Greece, Turkey, China, Japan) practically nobody has ever died in this country from an earthquake, volcanic eruption or similar.

"it just happened (by chance?) to get to the industrial revolution first"

Many things converged to bring the industrial revolution to the UK first. If you want to visit the cradle of the industrial revolution, you head for Ironbridge gorge in Shropshire - not coincidentally the most geologically diverse county in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Shropshire

>>An unstated (because it's not politically correct, even though it's provably factually correct) but related thing is that there was no culturally significant immigration to this country between the Norman invasion and the end of the second world war,<<

Yes, and those other bastions of ethnic homogeneity, Iceland and Japan, also founded great empires. SoRB, you used to live in Bradford, you must have seen for yourself that the city had significant Asian and German populations from the start of the Victorian age.

The UK also saw large scale immigration from Ireland at the time, but let's gloss over that as well. The key factor of global empires is that they see immigration from all over their empires.

Geologically one of the biggest things in the British Isles favour is that the rocks are so *old*. This benefit is twofold, because they've been so heavily eroded, in most places they aren't too severe a barrier to communication and the resources within are relatively accessible - we didn't have to dig too deep to access them.

Oh, and the reason your "fact" isn't stated is because it's not true and mostly brought up by racists.

It's got nothing to do with political correctness, that's simply something said by such racists to try and distract from their deplorable opinions.

Not sure where we'd stand historically on this one, but right now the UK is apparently the 51st most densely populated country in the world.

Looking at the top 50, most are (as you'd expect) tiny, tiny places like Singapore or Hong Kong, places that are "countries" in the administrative sense, rather than geographical - places that until relatively recently couldn't hope to maintain any semblance of independence from colonisers.

If one arbitrarily decides that a "proper" country has to be at least 10,000 square miles, we're left with:

Bangladesh
Taiwan
South Korea
Holland
Rwanda
Haiti
India
Belgium
Japan
Sri Lanka
Phillipines
Burundi
Vietnam.

Notably most of those countries are former colonies of one outside power or another.

Ultimately, while one can list such things as geography, geology, meteorology and embrace of capitalism, all of these things are aspects of the one thing which Britain has to thank for its previous status as Top Nation and whatever remains of that - luck.

To the list of critical natural resources please add refractoty minerals. We got good at metalworking in large part because we could smelt it hotter than the opposition.

Do not forget that Britain was the birthplace of a percentage of the World's greatest thinkers, inventors, mathematicians, scientists, physicists and biologists of recent times.

This is possibly incomplete and inaccurate but, by my count, Britain just squeezes out the U.S. Not bad for a Country of >60M!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inventors_by_nationality

However the main reason for growth was Coal, Iron and Steelworks, expanding sea power massively during the industrial revolution, but exporting that expertise. Note the Indian and Canadian railways, also the trade routes that enabled the UK to be free of the Spanish, Dutch and French for the likes of expensive commodities such as spices, tea, coffee, silk etc. And by using Nations that had compatible climates etc. could grow their own, such as nutmeg, coffee, pepper, chilies etc. A very valuable expansion!!!

And don't forget, the Commonwealth still provides a valuable resource, with non-Commonwealth Nations wanting to join it's ranks such as Algeria and Madagascar that have applied, and Rwanda and Mozambique which have joined. There are currently 54 members with Fiji, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe currently suspended from the Commonwealth.

MMF

That should have been "refractory".

There is such a thing as refrac-totty, mind you. In fact I married a particularly fine example.

"the reason your "fact" isn't stated is because it's not true"

Fine.

List, please, any wave of immigration taking place between 1100 AD and 1950 AD which was numerically and culturally comparable in its impact on British society as that taking place since.

Or, to save you some time, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_immigration_to_Great_Britain

For those who can't be bothered following the link, some highlights:

"DNA investigations have shown that the biological influence of 11th - 20th century immigration on Britain may have been rather small, marked more by continuity than change."

Regarding pre-20thC Asian immigrations: "By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were around 70,000 South Asians in Britain". Seventy thousand, total. Compare that with more than 60,000 Indians arriving in Britain between 1947 and 1955 alone. Trying to pretend immigration between 1100 AD and 1945 was in any way numerically comparable with what came after makes you look either dishonest or simply ignorant.

Just one more snippet:
"Over the 19th century a substantial population of German immigrants built up in Britain, numbering 28,644 in 1861. London held around half of this population, although other notable communities existed in Manchester, Bradford among others. The German immigrant community was the largest group until 1891"

A population numbering less than thirty thousand was, for half a century, the LARGEST immigrant community in Britain.

For comparison, the *increase* in the Polish immigrant population between 1931 and 1951 was more than FOUR TIMES that number.

Society-impacting immigration to Britain only got going in the latter half of the 20th century. Wikipedia doesn't mind admitting this. Why do you?

On to some more baffling points:

"Yes, and those other bastions of ethnic homogeneity, Iceland and Japan, also founded great empires".

Not sure what kind of point this rather odd observation is trying to make.

It is a truism to point out that various cities around Britain had, at various times, notable immigrant populations. I also lived in Salford, near a pub called, for reasons related to immigration, the Flemish Weaver. There are Jewish communities in London and Manchester, and Chinese, Turkish, Dutch and many others.

Rather the point, though, is that in each case these instances of immigration were qualitatively AND quantitatively different from the immigration since 1950.

I have lived, as you point out, in Bradford, and am fully aware of the history of German immigration there. I'm also able to tell you precisely how many times in five years living there that I heard anyone speak a word of German on the street. Can you guess? I can also tell you how many times I heard anyone speaking Flemish in Salford. Care to guess?

"The UK also saw large scale immigration from Ireland".

Hmm. That's an interesting one. Population movement from one part of the British Isles to another, and significantly movement of people speaking the same language, having the same skin colour, worshipping the same god and eating and drinking all the same things, does this even count as "immigration" at all? My guess here is that you don't even realise that Ireland has only been a legally separate nation for less than 90 years.

"The key factor of global empires is that they see immigration from all over their empires"

Uh... no. The key factor of global empires is that they EXPORT key people and IMPORT, as far as possible, just the money. The British emphatically did NOT go out taking over large swathes of America, Africa and Asia in order to encourage millions of the people living there to come back here. They did so because that was where the gold/silver/tea/coffee/cotton/slaves/other natural resources were. The idea of empire was to go out there and bring back the MONEY, not the people. Duh.

I sense a risk of derailing this quite interesting thread. I'm therefore going to post some statistical links and snippets, and then simply not mention immigration patterns again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922

"Commonwealth immigration, made up largely of economic migrants, rose from 3,000 per year in 1953 to 46,800 in 1956 and 136,400 in 1961"

http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/health-information/3a-populations/historical-changes

"Since the 1950s, the UK has experienced high levels of immigration"

And finally, how unbiased, independent and reputable a source can you find? How about the BBC itself?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/short_history_of_immigration.stm

"On 22 June 1948, the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in London, delivering hundreds of men from the West Indies.[...]

The day marked what would become a massive change to British society - the start of mass immigration to the UK and the arrival of different cultures. "

Now, if the BBC itself describes a "massive change" happening, and describes a particular day in 1948 as "the start of mass immigration", one can only wonder why anyone would even try, firstly to deny, then to imply racist motivations for pointing out this clearly accepted fact.

That's all from me on this subject.