As well as chronicling the familiar sins of empire, particularly in India, the author gives a fair hearing to those who emphasise the more positive aspects of imperial rule, railways, courts and all. And just as Britain has an imperial past, he recognises that it also has a liberal, anti-imperialist history—of abolishing the slave trade and spreading democracy, albeit in limited form. The empire is laid bare in all its contradictory complexity.
作者不仅记述了帝国（尤其是印度）常见的罪恶，还为那些强调帝国统治、铁路和法院等事物的更积极方面的人提供了公正的申诉机会。正如英国有着帝国主义的过去一样，桑赫拉认识到英国也有着自由、反帝国主义的历史，比如废除奴隶贸易和传播民主，尽管形式有限。大英帝国暴露出它所有矛盾的复杂性。
The same goes for its legacy. Mr Sanghera, a writer for the Times, justifiably criticises Britons for not being more receptive to immigrants, but he is no reflexive admirer of “pure multiculturalism”. He acknowledges that a laissez-faire approach to integration has sometimes allowed immigrant communities to “become isolated and myopic”. He argues that immigrants themselves are sometimes to blame for this—and that the people who suffer most are families like his own: “Too much of my energy as a young adult was expended on getting my family to accept that I wanted to be more British, to change more quickly than they were.”
大英帝国的遗留问题也是如此。《泰晤士报》的作家桑赫拉对英国人不太接受移民的批评合乎情理，但他并不是“纯粹多元文化主义”的本能崇拜者。他承认，自由放任的融合方式有时会让移民社区“变得孤立和缺乏远见”。他认为，有时候，移民本身是造成这种情况的罪魁祸首，而受害最深的是如他自己这般的家庭：“作为一个年轻人，我花了太多的精力让我的家人接受我想变成更纯粹的英国人，我希望我的转变要比我的家人更快。”
As for knocking over more statues, he concludes that rather than trying to obliterate imperial history, which will always infuriate as many people as it pleases, Britain should commemorate more of the colonised people who challenged and reformed the empire, or indeed died for it on the battlefield. In short, more, not fewer, plinths and plaques. That would give a clearer and more textured picture of Britain’s imperial past—just like Mr Sanghera’s excellent book.
至于是否要推倒更多雕像，他总结说，英国不该试图去抹杀帝国历史，这样的行为总是会惹众怒。英国应该更多地纪念那些挑战和改革帝国，或者真正在战场上为帝国出生入死的殖民地人民。简言之，英国要设立更多的纪念碑，而不是把雕像都推倒。这样的行为将展现更清晰、更有质感的英国帝国主义历史风貌，就像桑赫拉先生的优秀著作一样。
1/2 1 2 下一页 尾页