I believe that the fate of nations - their rise or their fall - is firmly bound to how determined their people are. Britons most certainly were back in Victorian times - running a global empire - a manufacturing superpower - they were victorious in battle on land and sea. But by the middle of the 20th century, America had taken over; today a tussle is taking place with China likely to wrest that crown for itself.
The strength of a nation is the sum, the product of the determination of its people. How easily they give up, how far they push themselves that extra bit, in their day-to-day lives, at work, at home, in their hobbies and interests - to get what is required of them - rather than just say "sod it, there's easier stuff I could be doing".
Over the decades, life has generally been becoming easier. Fewer things to worry about. No more queuing in the bank to pay your gas and electricity bills. Train tickets available from your phone. Calculators to do the counting. Goods of ever-higher quality available at ever-lower prices.
In essence, an easy, comfortable life is a good thing. It should be something we aim for - ridding ourselves of things that are unpleasant, uncomfortable or difficult in our lives.
I fear, however, that too much ease, and we get soft; complacent - flabby as a nation (metaphorically and literally). Which would be OK if every country, every person on our planet were moving in the same direction at the pace. But they're not.
A little over half a century ago, on 15 February 1971, Britain went decimal. One hundred new pee to the pound. How easy it suddenly was! Before that, we had to juggle with pennies (12d to the shilling) and shillings (20s to the pound). As well as half-crowns (two shillings and six pence) and guineas (21 shillings). Tanners (6d) and thrupenny bits (3d) were in our pockets too. Before 1961 there were also four farthings to the penny, and up to July 1969, there were two halfpennies to the penny.
In everyday life, this complex system meant having to use a higher order of arithmetic to work things out. A shirt costs 17/6d (17 shillings and six pence). How much change will you get from a pound? A shopkeeper sells 43 items for 11/7d. What was his total revenue from those items? You want to buy a pound of tomatoes at 2/4d, a pound-and-half of potatoes at 11d a pound. How much would you pay the greengrocer?
My mother, who hailed from a land where 100 grosze = 1 złoty, made a career as a comptometer operator, working in pre-decimal times for the accounts departments of various companies, totting up sales receipts with the aid of a comptometer. Like everyone in accounts departments across the UK, she had a book of tables called a 'ready reckoner' to help with calculations, and knew by heart the more common computations. So 24 gross of eggs at 8d a dozen would cost how much?
The result of this clumsy system was that primary schools taught the times tables to 12 (rather than to 10 as on the continent), and even the slowest child knew they needed to grasp this because otherwise they'd get short-changed by unscrupulous confectioners totting up four Black Jacks at a farthing each, a Cadbury's Dairy Milk bar at 3d and a Sherbert Dip-Dab at 5d.
Anyone working in retail had to have good mental arithmetic skills. The rich, who operated in pounds and guineas rather than pennies and shillings, didn't have to worry as much as the poor. If education gave anything to the working classes, it was the ability to juggle in twelves and twenties, quarters and halves.
Then came Decimal Day, and after a few years during which Britons were converting from the old system to the new (six old pence = two and half new pence, eight shillings = 40p, 19/6d = 97½p. The decimal halfpenny disappeared with the end of 1984, simplifying things further. Unlike decimalisation, metrication of weights and measures didn't happen overnight, but the gradual switch from ounces, pounds, stones, hundredweight and tons to grams, kilos and tonnes, made life easier still. There were 16 ounces to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, eight stone to the hundredweight and 20 hundredweight to the ton.
All gone. Once, you'd have to be able to work out mentally what three and half ounces of ham at 10/6d a pound would cost. Today, it's easy to tell how much 100g of the stuff selling at £10 a kilo.
One daily challenge facing our brains has gone for good - as a result, a nation that had to be good at mental arithmetic has lost that edge. And with it, I fear, some of the nation's drive and determination to do things that appear difficult.
I'd suggest introducing a currency with 17 dzherzgols to the rolspaarg, and 13 rolspaargs to the krazbount.
This time three years ago:
God, an Englishman, orders his Eden thus:
This time six years ago:
I buy a Nikon Coolpix A
This time seven years ago:
More about the Ladder of Authority
This time eight years ago:
By bike, south of Warsaw
This time ten years ago:
Functionalist architecture in Warsaw
This time 11 years ago:
What's the Polish for 'to bully'?
This time 12 years ago:
Making plans
This time 13 years ago:
The setting sun stirs my soul
This time 11 years ago:
Rain ends the drought
6 comments:
In Harry Potter's wizarding world there are 17 Sickles in a Galleon, and 29 Knuts in a Sickle, meaning there are 493 Knuts in a Galleon.
@ Anonymous
That's excellent - had I known that, I've have had to devise a different conceit. Still, it shows the direction that imaginations work that had been subjected to pounds, shillings and pence (J.K. Rowling was five and half when decimalisation happened!)
Perhaps a logarithmic currency or one based on irrational numbers.
Marek
@ Marek
Irrational numbers - an excellent idea. It would force us all to grasp the concept! Or in binary, where your £16 become £10,000.
I'm reminded of the fictional and bizarre Pal Uzdy in Banffy Miklos's Transylvanian Trilogy, who went mad trying to invent a new currency based on (if I recall correctly) a base of 16. There must have been a predisposition to madness since, as Michael shows, all it needs is some attention to mental arithmetic. Maybe not all Counts could count well? (Groan)
@WHP
Sixteen makes sense...
'The Grand Old Duke of York
He had just 16 men
But he expressed that number in binary
To make it sound more impressive.'
A base of 16 is therefore relatively logical (and much easier than a prime number like 13, 17 or 19) :-)
Post a Comment