3 ms·

> hugely embarrassing incident Is this a normal way of looking at state-state relations? I understood the Suez canal thing as a loss of prestige (obviously, th

> hugely embarrassing incident Is this a normal way of looking at state-state relations? I understood the Suez canal thing as a loss of prestige (obviously, the UK was no longer able to 'walk the walk', of being an empire), but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me. Humiliation implies a degree of popular investment in the imperial project that really wasn't there. States by themselves are not persons, and thus are shameless. You're right about the monarchy, although they are surprisingly pernicious and deep-rooted in the UK itself. I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was, and he neither lived nor died in a remarkable manner. I'm not sure how much ordinary people engage (apparently, most people switched off the telly, and there were a lot of complaints), but the establishment investment in the monarchy is pretty intense.

hilbert42 5y ago
"...but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me." OK, fair enough, but I didn't gain that perspective on my own. Type in 'U.K.', 'Suez Crisis' 'embarrassment' and or 'humiliation' into any search engine and you'll get any number of authoritative references to the fact. Even though I was a just child at the time, I vividly recall the huge kerfuffle the 'Crisis' caused. I was fully aware of the fact from daily newspaper headlines, animated discussions my parents were having over the matter, etc., that it was about the biggest news story since WWII. Here's a few first-pass searches to that effect: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-im... https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml (note the BBC's comment 'In Britain too there had been widespread outrage', you'd reckon the BBC would avoid such comments unless they were both very relevant and unavoidable). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-humiliating-the-parallels-between-the-suez-crisis-and-the-evacuation-of-kabul/ar-AAPlfMN https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-hu... If you aren't already bored to tears then here's another long and detailed version: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-crisis/ https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-cri... ________________ Edit/afterthought: "I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was..." Obviously, you live outside the U.K. or any Commonwealth country (certainly no criticism intended because in the grand global scheme of things, HRH was pretty irrelevant). (I recall a colleague mentioning his death to me during a telephone conversation (as he heard the announcement live on the radio that was running in the background at the time). That was enough for me to shut out every bit of news media for several weeks—as I knew there would be unavoidable wall-to-wall coverage of the event for weeks to come and frankly I knew that I could not stand all the palaver. Even now, I still don't know the details of his funeral but I do know that those who watched just about any news channel in the English-speaking world would have had to have known the details as they would have been impossible to avoid (of course, I cannot speak for non-English news outlets). That's why HN is so relevant, one can still keep up to date and avoid all unnecessary/useless dross. :-)
- pasabagi 5y ago
  It's long before my time: it's still floating around (even for millennials like me) as a turning point in the UK's history, but I always thought of it as a bit like the US-Spain war, or a less-grimy opium war, the marker of a fait accompli. I mean, everybody must have been aware for decades at that point that the UK didn't have the resources to do imperial power politics. I grew up firmly in the era of the 'imperial memory hole', so it's really been brexit (and all the culture war stuff that accompanied it) that's made me pay attention to the whole british empire thing. EDIT: On the PPhillip thing, I guess I don't own a TV, or a radio, so that probably helps. But still, a guy whose only claim to fame is that he's married to a woman who is famous for never saying anything has to be the least noteworthy celebrity I've ever heard of. You actually have to do stuff to register.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    "I mean, everybody must have been aware for decades at that point that the UK didn't have the resources to do imperial power politics." Yeah, absolutely true, but just to make sure the U.K. rubbed the fact home with such style and panache that no one could ever forget the fact (comparatively speaking it was much bigger than Brexit—perhaps the U.K. forgot it was no longer a superpower and that international opinion now actually mattered (in that it could no longer get away with such arrogance as it did in the days of empire). What other possible reason could there be? Mind you, the U.K. was not alone, it was egged on and encouraged by its cohorts France and Israel.

hilbert42 5y ago

"...but to see it as a humiliation seems weird to me." OK, fair enough, but I didn't gain that perspective on my own. Type in 'U.K.', 'Suez Crisis' 'embarrassment' and or 'humiliation' into any search engine and you'll get any number of authoritative references to the fact. Even though I was a just child at the time, I vividly recall the huge kerfuffle the 'Crisis' caused. I was fully aware of the fact from daily newspaper headlines, animated discussions my parents were having over the matter, etc., that it was about the biggest news story since WWII. Here's a few first-pass searches to that effect: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-im... https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml (note the BBC's comment 'In Britain too there had been widespread outrage', you'd reckon the BBC would avoid such comments unless they were both very relevant and unavoidable). https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-humiliating-the-parallels-between-the-suez-crisis-and-the-evacuation-of-kabul/ar-AAPlfMN https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/shameful-incompetent-hu... If you aren't already bored to tears then here's another long and detailed version: https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-crisis/ https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-cri... ________________ Edit/afterthought: "I was pretty shocked when they interrupted every BBC channel on the TV to deliver an announcement about Prince Phillip dying - I was only vaguely aware of who he was..." Obviously, you live outside the U.K. or any Commonwealth country (certainly no criticism intended because in the grand global scheme of things, HRH was pretty irrelevant). (I recall a colleague mentioning his death to me during a telephone conversation (as he heard the announcement live on the radio that was running in the background at the time). That was enough for me to shut out every bit of news media for several weeks—as I knew there would be unavoidable wall-to-wall coverage of the event for weeks to come and frankly I knew that I could not stand all the palaver. Even now, I still don't know the details of his funeral but I do know that those who watched just about any news channel in the English-speaking world would have had to have known the details as they would have been impossible to avoid (of course, I cannot speak for non-English news outlets). That's why HN is so relevant, one can still keep up to date and avoid all unnecessary/useless dross. :-)

pasabagi 5y ago
It's long before my time: it's still floating around (even for millennials like me) as a turning point in the UK's history, but I always thought of it as a bit like the US-Spain war, or a less-grimy opium war, the marker of a fait accompli. I mean, everybody must have been aware for decades at that point that the UK didn't have the resources to do imperial power politics. I grew up firmly in the era of the 'imperial memory hole', so it's really been brexit (and all the culture war stuff that accompanied it) that's made me pay attention to the whole british empire thing. EDIT: On the PPhillip thing, I guess I don't own a TV, or a radio, so that probably helps. But still, a guy whose only claim to fame is that he's married to a woman who is famous for never saying anything has to be the least noteworthy celebrity I've ever heard of. You actually have to do stuff to register.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "I mean, everybody must have been aware for decades at that point that the UK didn't have the resources to do imperial power politics." Yeah, absolutely true, but just to make sure the U.K. rubbed the fact home with such style and panache that no one could ever forget the fact (comparatively speaking it was much bigger than Brexit—perhaps the U.K. forgot it was no longer a superpower and that international opinion now actually mattered (in that it could no longer get away with such arrogance as it did in the days of empire). What other possible reason could there be? Mind you, the U.K. was not alone, it was egged on and encouraged by its cohorts France and Israel.