In fact we the Brits had our very own "gauge" issue with a certain short bloke with a huge massive hat and his own railway system...and no it isnt Abraham Lincoln. It was with a certain Mr Brunel and his broad gauge that caused the stir in this country. The key to any success is to have a similar or compatible system which can be used by everyone. Brunel didnt think this. His gauge was seen (by him) to be the best but in short singled out his railway from everyone else's. The majority of the UK was, and still uses the "standard" gauge designed by George Stephenson, therefore you had to change trains, all because of the different size of your train. Crazy....definatley. It wasnt until 1892 that Brunel's system was finally converted to the "standard gauge" and then all of the UK was "one" size to fit all. The counties that had once been under the "Broad Gauge" certainlly benefited from the switch to the standard gauge. The Irish decided to stick with the Brunel system, and sorry to seem like im poking fun, just look at their system now. I love Ireland to bits but its always seemed like ive stepped back 20 years in time when im over there. It hasnt been able to develop has it could of done. The same could be said about the Southern States of America.
Bristol Temple Meads Today: Originally centre to Brunel's "Broad Gauge", converted to standard gauge
Dublin: Line to Croke Park-now abandoned (Broad Gauge)
Of course the US was a dire mess after the Civil War and one key element of the reconstruction could be argued that the ecomonic structure of those states deeply affected by the war needed to be stabilised and controlled in such a way to be able to flow freely. The Southern states have always been 2nd best to the Northern States, Top Gear certainlly showed us why most globetrotters would avoid these "hick" states like going to a game at Fratton Park in a Southampton top with "Redknapp" on your back. To the normal eye, its a no brainer. But with all the questions flying around about emancipation, reconstruction and of course the issue with newly freed slaves, the answer that could of solved a great deal of the problem was clearly evident. To the statement by Richard Hill, n ex slave to who my seminar group & myself talked about, these people didnt want to rise up against their former slaves, but they wanted "work and land". However this wasnt possible because southern whites werent willing to help these guys out, racism was about as rife as a force 12 hurricane and employment towards the ex slaves was either out of reach or non vi-able. And this is where the railway issue comes into this mini debate. Would it of helped the situation with regards to the ecomonic state of the southern states if their were more railways? And if so of the same track size to those of the North? I believe to could of helped one way or another, but at least its given me the chance to ram something in about trains and history into my blog! Oh and also throw in one of my photos as well!! (Its the top one!) With regards to the issue ive just raised, its certainly something else to have a think about.
OK here's my first proper post on my brand new blog. The lecture Ive just been in talked about the ideas of Britain and its so called "image" as a powerful nation alongside other European nations around it. The basic element in my view regarding this so called issue of whether Britain was such a powerful nation, directly centred around the very idea of that so called "image". The heavy state of Jingoism that has been a common factor within this country could be a centre cause to why we got, and still do, get carried away with the very idea that Britain is the greatest country in the world, and no one else is.....unless we managed to take over a random country a couple of decades ago, stuck a flag there and said "Right matey this place its now ours!". A good question to ask is this. With all the propaganda and Jingoism; what "exactly" does it mean to be British? What does make you British? This is certainly something you could ask yourself. What IS the criteria of being properly British? Its certainly a problem that's still going strong today. The Fact that Britain likes to still think its the greatest and still compete with other nations about it. People have certainlly taken this on board throughout the decades, and to some extent, it has caused more harm than good.
Take our natural obsession with Germany for example. Fair enough we fought them in two world wars and beat them in a certain World Cup final but do we really need to keep kicking the same old rusty Heinz baked bean can into the bin? Is their any point of still refering those guys "across the river and slightly to the right" as the natural enemy? Clearly their really shouldnt be. However this is sadly not the case. This still all boils down to the type of Jingoistic, happily produced, union jack wrapped patroitism which we have become renouned for. The Two World Wars against them certainly havent helped, and niether has the works of a certain Basil Faulty or Harry Enfield played any part in finally laying this much flogged ghost to rest. But take into consideration those people that fought during the conflicts. With the experiences that they went through and the suffering that they must of went through, the emphasis shifts in a completely new direction. Can you blame them? To a massive extent no. But what about the the other aspect of the argument? I'm just writing this. That's up for you to decide.
So what is the right definition of British? Its definatley a tricky one. Is it the "Keep Calm & Carry On" emphasis the same old patterns that we have grown up with. Or does it mean something else? That's only something for you to decide. The issue though isnt modern. The issue is firmly in the past. Why were we so stubborn in the face of European events/intervention? Even in the face of great struggle, especially as the 20th Century rolled into the 2nd half the century, we still stood there with the impression that Britannia was still riding high with spear in hand, when in reality we were nothing more an secondary state to America, holding up nothing more to the world than a plastic spoon. Why did we do that?!?! Why were we so "stiff upper lipped" about everything, even though we were basically broke? Whatever routes or choices we could of taken, and whatever "image" we had, whether it be with alling with the Germans before WWI, the finanical and social turmoil that gripped the UK in the 1970's, one thing is for certain. As regards to Britain looking back other the decades and the trouble we have been in, and the possibilites we could of taken, we certainly didnt help ourselves one little bit. But then again, thats my own view.
