First up, this is a genuine, non-trolling question. As a born and bred Scot. I know what my origin and that means to me.
But having lived in England for the thick end of 30 years, this is a question I’ve always felt needed to be asked. Not to challenge or put people down, but to explore and understand.
So, if you’re an English Dakkanaut, do chime in - and please don’t comment/berate/disagree politely with another poster without first offering up you’re own take.
I’m not expecting a homogenous view, just an interesting and informative read
This is like asking what it means to be Scottish or Welsh, you'll get a different answer for every person in the room.
Why did you 'always feel like it was a question that needed to be asked'?
Are you suggesting the English don't have their own identity anymore?
For me, being English is categorised by a few things;
1. A healthy hatred of the French.
2. A healthy "competition" (hatred) with the Scottish and Welsh.
3. A 'stiff upper lip' mentality.
4. Never forget your manners, particularly with regards to queues.
5. A sense of pride of the achievements of the Nation.
6. An unwillingness to admit that our food is by far the most bland and boring of any country.
You'll notice the Monarchy mean little to me and I don't feel that they are relevant. Same with a particular religion.
Always maintain that Europe is the best continent.
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
Always maintain that England is carrying the other British nations.
Always maintain the North is better than the South.
Always maintain that Yorkshire is the greatest County.
Always maintain East Yorkshire is the best third.
Always maintain Hull isn't as bad as people think.
Always maintain that people who don't live in my part of Hull are savages.
Always maintain the French deserve the hatred we give them.
Yes, it's a great book and worth noting that while it's specifically about the English, a lot of the observations can be generalised to the British as a whole.
Personally speaking I'm English born and bred, but I self-identify primarily as British. If a foreigner asks me if I'm English I say yes -- typically Americans and Japanese don't understand the distinction anyway.
This is part of the identity crisis facing the English. As the majority of the British Isles and effective Top Nation, the English identity was super-merged (If that is a word) in the British imperial identity during the days of Empire.
This of course is fading but while the devolved nations have their own national identities and assemblies, the English don't and have lost their Imperial identity and don't know how to identify themselves.
I had this question at my exam last month ! And I was awarded a nice 7.5/20 (a really bad mark...)...
You writed English, do you mean English or British and you overlooked it (really want to know !) ?
godardc wrote: I had this question at my exam last month ! And I was awarded a nice 7.5/20 (a really bad mark...)...
You writed English, do you mean English or British and you overlooked it (really want to know !) ?
May I enquire as to why a (presumably) French exam asked what it meant to be British.
Also, I believe he meant English: as a Scot he was asking what being English meant to us.
mrhappyface wrote: Always maintain that Europe is the best continent.
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
Always maintain that England is carrying the other British nations.
Always maintain the North is better than the South.
Always maintain that Yorkshire is the greatest County.
Always maintain East Yorkshire is the best third.
Always maintain Hull isn't as bad as people think.
Always maintain that people who don't live in my part of Hull are savages.
Always maintain the French deserve the hatred we give them.
I see you have gotten confused what you meant is;
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
Always maintain that England is carrying the other British nations.
Always maintain the South is better than the North.
Always maintain that Somerset is the greatest County.
Always maintain that the levels is the best third.
Always maintain hills don't exist.
Always maintain that people who live in the North are savages.
Always maintain the French deserve the hatred we give them.
Always maintain that the Empire only existed because we wanted to eat food that wasn't boiled or roasted until the last nutrient was whimpering in fear.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally speaking I'm English born and bred, but I self-identify primarily as British. If a foreigner asks me if I'm English I say yes -- typically Americans and Japanese don't understand the distinction anyway.
Most of my American co-workers call me British, and I'm from the Republic of Ireland. Watching the English is a very interesting book.
I would like to hear from more English people in this thread. When I lived in England for a couple of years I was surprised at how different we were from each other culturally, but there is a lot to admire in Englishness, along with the obvious chip-on-my-shoulder stuff
I really was struck by how in England, up to then anyway, people seemed to really trust in their institutions. Stuff like the NHS and the local councils, it seemed to be taken for granted by most people that they would be muddling along doing the right thing. I found that really charming and likeable.
Englishness could (mostly past tense) be best described as an understated confidence. The English do not fly the flag in the same way as mot other nationalities even those within the UK, with exception of the national pageants where we outdo anyone.
Furthermore we are not overly challenged when other nationalities fly their flags at our celebrations. Go to the Last Night of the Proms and you will see it being taken over with non English flags, particularly Australian. We are not challenged by that. Fly the St George Cross or Union flag at an Australian celebration is rather different though.
The understatement came from a quiet confidence in the nation state. Americans bleat about how they are the best, the English never did even when during the height of their hegemony.
The ideal is simple, if you know, you don't need to showboat.
Other sections of the English identity, have the opposite ideology. Go to a football match and you can find no shortage of vocal English supremacy, even when the truth is sadly lacking. Mostly its bound up in the class divide.
From both ends Englishness is unraveling, it has been discouraged for the most part in education in favour of multi-culturalism, and this applied specifically to Englishness as a political ploy, Scottishness and Welsh identity were given the opposite treatment. It was part of a divide and rule policy that has had lasting effect, both in terms or national unity and in public identity. What remains is due to a generation divide, those raised before the 90's still have the English identity, those after often have little to none. Some were even formally educated/indoctrinated into believing there was no such thing as an English culture.
As the identity has been lost to much of a generation, and further diluted there can be expected to be further large changes to the English cultural identity.
Another interesting thing is that non-white English people are a lot more likely to call themselves British. I.e. "Black British" rather than "Black English."
This confirms the idea that English is a white identity.
Kilkrazy wrote: Another interesting thing is that non-white English people are a lot more likely to call themselves British. I.e. "Black British" rather than "Black English."
This confirms the idea that English is a white identity.
It confirms little of the sort. There is a wide gulf for instance between a black English and a black Scot. However calling oneself British rather than English was encouraged externally, it is also how identity appears on the census forms.
The black community is pre-dominantly anglicised, though a separate culture of Afro-Carribean is encouraged, and is also listed in the census in separation to Black British and Black African.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 6. An unwillingness to admit that our food is by far the most bland and boring of any country.
The Dutch give you a run for your money though. I think they're pretty hard to beat.
As I tend to say: if you want to know if a given country has good food, just try to see how many of their restaurants you can find in other countries. Everywhere I went to, I've seen French, Italian, Japanese, Thai, or Indian restaurants. But I don't think I've ever seen an English or Dutch restaurant in my life. I've seen Fish&Chips food trucks, and some English pubs (although Irish pubs are a lot more common), so I guess it could be worse.
More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
Kilkrazy wrote: Another interesting thing is that non-white English people are a lot more likely to call themselves British. I.e. "Black British" rather than "Black English."
This confirms the idea that English is a white identity.
It confirms little of the sort. There is a wide gulf for instance between a black English and a black Scot. However calling oneself British rather than English was encouraged externally, it is also how identity appears on the census forms.
The black community is pre-dominantly anglicised, though a separate culture of Afro-Carribean is encouraged, and is also listed in the census in separation to Black British and Black African.
We're discussing people's individual responses to an opinion survey, not what the census form says.
More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
Mostly true of course!
However that tea drinking Englishman will be quietly thinking of how nice it would be if your string of onions would get caught in your bicycle wheel and pulled you off and choke you, so you lie caught by the side of the road in your striped shirt and beret while the snails have revenge and crawl on your face and eat your garlic. Because of course you are not properly dressed without all those things.
Kilkrazy wrote: Another interesting thing is that non-white English people are a lot more likely to call themselves British. I.e. "Black British" rather than "Black English."
This confirms the idea that English is a white identity.
It confirms little of the sort. There is a wide gulf for instance between a black English and a black Scot. However calling oneself British rather than English was encouraged externally, it is also how identity appears on the census forms.
The black community is pre-dominantly anglicised, though a separate culture of Afro-Carribean is encouraged, and is also listed in the census in separation to Black British and Black African.
We're discussing people's individual responses to an opinion survey, not what the census form says.
Hence you are wrong.
You have to look beyond the conditioning. "Are you English or British?" as a question has its own dynamic to it. It's a trigger response.
fresus wrote: More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
That's infinitely more polite than the British stereotype of the French
I'm a military brat, so always considered myself British. I still do consider myself British. It was in my early teens when my family finally settled in England that everyone told me I was wrong and that I'm English. People still insist on telling me that I'm wrong and that I'm English. Funny old world isn't it.
Orlanth wrote: However that tea drinking Englishman will be quietly thinking of how nice it would be if your string of onions would get caught in your bicycle wheel and pulled you off and choke you, so you lie caught by the side of the road in your striped shirt and beret while the snails have revenge and crawl on your face and eat your garlic. Because of course you are not properly dressed without all those things.
It happens all the time, because it's pretty hard to steer a bike while holding a baguette under the armpit, so we tend to drop our onions a lot.
I know wha Britain first thinks it is to be English haha
Jokes aside, it changes from place to place in the country, I’m welsh 2nd and British first, so looking at the English I see a mess of contradictions, I don’t thing the English really know what it is to be English anymore.
This is part of the identity crisis facing the English. As the majority of the British Isles and effective Top Nation, the English identity was super-merged (If that is a word) in the British imperial identity during the days of Empire.
This of course is fading but while the devolved nations have their own national identities and assemblies, the English don't and have lost their Imperial identity and don't know how to identify themselves.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
Thinking on the lack of Englishness and I wonder if school history might have something to do with it. I went to a school called King Alfred's, I studied history every year upto A level and in all that time we had two terms of 'British' history (one on female suffrage and one on the industrial revolution), we had at least three on the rise of the German Nazi party.
Similarly, every St. Patricks day people would be out partying whilst if you told most people it was St. George's day they would not have a clue. Compounding that this week was the Queens Birthday and I got a day off work for it and you don't in England. The Irish and Scots get their saints days off as well whilst the English don't (do the Welsh?).
This is part of the identity crisis facing the English. As the majority of the British Isles and effective Top Nation, the English identity was super-merged (If that is a word) in the British imperial identity during the days of Empire.
This of course is fading but while the devolved nations have their own national identities and assemblies, the English don't and have lost their Imperial identity and don't know how to identify themselves.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
Scots and, to an extent, the Welsh tended to see "British" as being something above individual national identity, which for a long time we were trained to view as backwards, parochial, and crass(or at least, see our own national identities that way), but the thing is that's never really been how the English and the English establishment especially looked at things. Britishness was simply Greater Englishness, Englishness Plus, a kind of Englishness that the non-English were permitted, with appropriate deference, to aspire to, in the same way that Britain itself was always in truth the English Empire and the rest of us were merely supposed to be glad to be ruled by it and to be permitted to contribute to it and conform to its norms and values.
This is very much historical stuff, by the way, before anyone gets bunched up. I'm not asserting that modern English people are all still patronising colonialists. However, the residue of those old attitudes and assumptions are still there because England has been reticent to confront the loss of empire, Britain's declining global influence in general, and the resurgence of non-British identities outside of England. That's been compounded by the way "Englishness" has often been seized on by the "blood and soil" types as a way to differentiate themselves from the right-wing establishment parties who tend to profess Britishness, which leads a lot of people to recoil from the distinction even though, in truth, there isn't actually much of a distinction outside of the minds of the people who want there to be one for whatever reason(the "post-national" aspect often appeals to immigrants, or it did prior to the present mess, and there are still plenty of Scots and Welsh who fully buy in to the idea that non-British nationalisms are automatically bad things and that British nationalism is somehow not really a nationalism at all) - there is just Englishness, and Englishness that non-English people participate in on varying degrees of sufferance.
Northern Ireland is a whole thing of its own, of course.
I think there's a lot in the theory around education. For example during WW2 there was more or less complete acceptance that the British (i.e. English) Empire was a good thing, and nowadays there is a lot more critical appraisal, for example of Britain's role in the slace trade.
It's also a matter of general communication and multiculturalism.
50 years ago olive oil was only available in chemist shops "for external application". Foreign holidays were expensive and exotic -- in France!
No internet, only two TV channels.
No devolved government in Scotland and so on.
It's difficult to internalise how much has changed.
This is part of the identity crisis facing the English. As the majority of the British Isles and effective Top Nation, the English identity was super-merged (If that is a word) in the British imperial identity during the days of Empire.
This of course is fading but while the devolved nations have their own national identities and assemblies, the English don't and have lost their Imperial identity and don't know how to identify themselves.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
Scots and, to an extent, the Welsh tended to see "British" as being something above individual national identity, which for a long time we were trained to view as backwards, parochial, and crass(or at least, see our own national identities that way), but the thing is that's never really been how the English and the English establishment especially looked at things. Britishness was simply Greater Englishness, Englishness Plus, a kind of Englishness that the non-English were permitted, with appropriate deference, to aspire to, in the same way that Britain itself was always in truth the English Empire and the rest of us were merely supposed to be glad to be ruled by it and to be permitted to contribute to it and conform to its norms and values.
This is very much historical stuff, by the way, before anyone gets bunched up. I'm not asserting that modern English people are all still patronising colonialists. However, the residue of those old attitudes and assumptions are still there because England has been reticent to confront the loss of empire, Britain's declining global influence in general, and the resurgence of non-British identities outside of England. That's been compounded by the way "Englishness" has often been seized on by the "blood and soil" types as a way to differentiate themselves from the right-wing establishment parties who tend to profess Britishness, which leads a lot of people to recoil from the distinction even though, in truth, there isn't actually much of a distinction outside of the minds of the people who want there to be one for whatever reason(the "post-national" aspect often appeals to immigrants, or it did prior to the present mess, and there are still plenty of Scots and Welsh who fully buy in to the idea that non-British nationalisms are automatically bad things and that British nationalism is somehow not really a nationalism at all) - there is just Englishness, and Englishness that non-English people participate in on varying degrees of sufferance.
Northern Ireland is a whole thing of its own, of course.
Yep I can see where your coming from, here in Wales we see English national pride as the home of racists and bigots, it’s not true of course but that identity has taken a hard knock as it’s been appropriated by the far right, England for the English, and they see the entire UK as England.
I can’t speak for Scotland but welsh nationalism is celebrated here, and there is still a lot of bitterness over the murder of Owain Glyndŵr and the welsh monarchy by the English and England continued control over Wales, but that’s tempered by the fact that we realise we are all part of the UK and it mostly manifests as a light digging and taking the piss out of the English, though admittedly there were some terrorist attacks against the English in the 60’s/70’s IIRC.
Long story short it’s a big bag of cats and somehow we all get along for the most part.
Well... until this thread I didn't even know english and british weren't the same thing.
I supose the relation between english=british is similar (Not in the motivations but in the result) as how the Spanish identity was constructed from andalusian+castillian from Franco, and Galician, Vasques and Catalans were left out as second-clash spanish people. So when you think about Spanish, you think about a mix of andalusian+castillian, and they themselves identify them as spanish and nothing else.
Just like Yodhrin said, I believe.
EDIT: And as formosa said, galician, catalan and vasque "nationalism" is in general seen as a good thing, but "spanish" nationalism is normally the umbrella for fascist and post-franquists, and many people believes they have basically kidnaped (Myself included) the "spanish" identity for their own political agenda, for the detriment of all of the country. Is actually funny how similar the situations are.
Of course, the catalonian crisis hasn't helped with this.
More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
That's one end of the spectrum. The other is... what GW based Orks on.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it's a great book and worth noting that while it's specifically about the English, a lot of the observations can be generalised to the British as a whole.
Personally speaking I'm English born and bred, but I self-identify primarily as British. If a foreigner asks me if I'm English I say yes -- typically Americans and Japanese don't understand the distinction anyway.
This is part of the identity crisis facing the English. As the majority of the British Isles and effective Top Nation, the English identity was super-merged (If that is a word) in the British imperial identity during the days of Empire.
This of course is fading but while the devolved nations have their own national identities and assemblies, the English don't and have lost their Imperial identity and don't know how to identify themselves.
This is behind the vote for Brexit.
Interesting.
That has a lot of similarities with the problem of "Russian" identity, which used to be pretty much the same as Imperial or Soviet identity but then suddenly the empire was gone. Russia is still suffering from a really big identity crisis.
"Well, erm, hmm, its alright. We've got understatement. We have strong prevailing South Westerly winds. 52% of our days are overcast, so as a nation we're infused with a wistful melancholy. But we remain a relentlessly chipper population, prone to mild eccentricity, binge drinking and casual violence"
More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
Mostly true of course!
However that tea drinking Englishman will be quietly thinking of how nice it would be if your string of onions would get caught in your bicycle wheel and pulled you off and choke you, so you lie caught by the side of the road in your striped shirt and beret while the snails have revenge and crawl on your face and eat your garlic. Because of course you are not properly dressed without all those things.
I think this exchange is one of the best examples of what it is to be English I have ever seen.
Turnip Jedi wrote: "Well, erm, hmm, its alright. We've got understatement. We have strong prevailing South Westerly winds. 52% of our days are overcast, so as a nation we're infused with a wistful melancholy. But we remain a relentlessly chipper population, prone to mild eccentricity, binge drinking and casual violence"
Heed the wisdom of the troll truth speaker
I'll just add to that with:
I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. That's why I buy Kinder Surprise. Horrible chocolate; nasty little toy: a double-whammy of disillusionment! Sometimes I eat the toy out of sheer despair.
Jadenim wrote: Also, being from the Midlands, I get a double-whammy of lack of identity, for both region and country.
South Staffordshire myself. The northerners call us southerners and the southerners call us northerners and neither take the time to notice the clue is in the name.
We're from the Midlands, we're midlanders.
It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Scots and, to an extent, the Welsh tended to see "British" as being something above individual national identity, which for a long time we were trained to view as backwards, parochial, and crass(or at least, see our own national identities that way), but the thing is that's never really been how the English and the English establishment especially looked at things. Britishness was simply Greater Englishness, Englishness Plus, a kind of Englishness that the non-English were permitted, with appropriate deference, to aspire to, in the same way that Britain itself was always in truth the English Empire and the rest of us were merely supposed to be glad to be ruled by it and to be permitted to contribute to it and conform to its norms and values.
This isn't really the case. The UK has been very harmonious, the raise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism is a very recent occurance and has much to do with the divide an rule policy of the Blair years. Prior to Blair Plaid Cymru and the SNP were fringe joke parties with very little support.
However now we have the myth of England vs everyone else, engineered for party benefit that has largely backfired.
Britishness invoked the ideal of the United Kingdom, which while England was the economic and geographical central component it based on a unified identity to which the Scottish and Welsh identity was a protected part and no less than the whole.
This is evidenced by the fact that the relationships of the UK have been long established but the specific rhetoric in critique of it is a recent phenomena, were the problem real it would have surfaced as a large scale unrest a lot earlier.
Northern Ireland is a whole thing of its own, of course.
In this you are entirely correct, hence why the anti-English and anti-British sentiments were stronger, more active, and longer lasting. Glasgow is also a microcosm of Northern Ireland, and to a much less extent Liverpool, and both because of a non-integrated culture connected to Northern Ireland.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a lot in the theory around education. For example during WW2 there was more or less complete acceptance that the British (i.e. English) Empire was a good thing, and nowadays there is a lot more critical appraisal, for example of Britain's role in the slace trade.
Britain's role in the slave trade was largely to end it. However it is yet another example of modern revisionism.
Yep I can see where your coming from, here in Wales we see English national pride as the home of racists and bigots, it’s not true of course but that identity has taken a hard knock as it’s been appropriated by the far right, England for the English, and they see the entire UK as England.
It is intended that youn think that way. Here we see the 'brainwashing' of the last two decades at work from this observation. Flag flying in the UK is an interesting case study and a litmus test for the indoctrination from the New Labour era and its lasting damage. Fly the Welsh or Scottish national flags and that is cultural heritage under mutli-culturalism, flag the St George flag and its seen as far right. The same is also claimed of the Union flag. More on this later.
ingtaer wrote: Thinking on the lack of Englishness and I wonder if school history might have something to do with it. I went to a school called King Alfred's, I studied history every year upto A level and in all that time we had two terms of 'British' history (one on female suffrage and one on the industrial revolution), we had at least three on the rise of the German Nazi party.
Similarly, every St. Patricks day people would be out partying whilst if you told most people it was St. George's day they would not have a clue. Compounding that this week was the Queens Birthday and I got a day off work for it and you don't in England. The Irish and Scots get their saints days off as well whilst the English don't (do the Welsh?).
Another example. Back as far as the 1980's the history curriculum would cover the history of the British isles. By the age of twelve I had been taught about Roman Britain, the Anglo Saxons, Norman Conquest continuously through to King John, the Tudors, Edward 1 through to Robert Bruce, the English Civil War and Jacobite rebellion. I got a grounding in the national identity. Then learned a more modern history covering the first half of the twentieth century as a teenager. In more recent years it is normally reduced to a form of very slanted social science. Restricting the curriculum to topics like womens suffrage, and post colonialism is common and is intended to both strip cultural and national identity while fostering a guilt mentality.
The current government woke up to this and in 2012 insisted that the curriculum covered a minimum of 200 years of continuous British history.
[I see you have gotten confused what you meant is;
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
Always maintain that England is carrying the other British nations.
Always maintain the South is better than the North.
Always maintain that Somerset is the greatest County.
Always maintain that the levels is the best third.
Always maintain hills don't exist.
Always maintain that people who live in the North are savages.
Always maintain the French deserve the hatred we give them.
Always maintain that the Empire only existed because we wanted to eat food that wasn't boiled or roasted until the last nutrient was whimpering in fear.
] ingtaer
Not strictly true on the hill front, we have the lofty heights of the ham hills. Lol. Plus we grows the bestest apples for the magic elixir that’s known as cider. Except the blackthorn crap.
godardc wrote: I had this question at my exam last month ! And I was awarded a nice 7.5/20 (a really bad mark...)...
You writed English, do you mean English or British and you overlooked it (really want to know !) ?
May I enquire as to why a (presumably) French exam asked what it meant to be British.
Also, I believe he meant English: as a Scot he was asking what being English meant to us.
It is because I am studying English and Spanish, and thus British and US civilizations too !
mrhappyface wrote: Always maintain that Europe is the best continent.
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
Always maintain that England is carrying the other British nations.
Always maintain the North is better than the South.
Always maintain that Yorkshire is the greatest County.
Always maintain East Yorkshire is the best third.
Always maintain Hull isn't as bad as people think.
Always maintain that people who don't live in my part of Hull are savages.
Always maintain the French deserve the hatred we give them.
So would Welsh consider themes English? What's the difference between North and South?
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a lot in the theory around education. For example during WW2 there was more or less complete acceptance that the British (i.e. English) Empire was a good thing, and nowadays there is a lot more critical appraisal, for example of Britain's role in the slace trade.
Britain's role in the slave trade was largely to end it. However it is yet another example of modern revisionism.
That's complete crap.
Britain traded massively in slaves from the 16th to the early 19th century. Just look at the National Archives for accounting records of it.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 6. An unwillingness to admit that our food is by far the most bland and boring of any country.
The Dutch give you a run for your money though. I think they're pretty hard to beat.
As I tend to say: if you want to know if a given country has good food, just try to see how many of their restaurants you can find in other countries. Everywhere I went to, I've seen French, Italian, Japanese, Thai, or Indian restaurants. But I don't think I've ever seen an English or Dutch restaurant in my life. I've seen Fish&Chips food trucks, and some English pubs (although Irish pubs are a lot more common), so I guess it could be worse.
More on topic, I think being English means walking in the streets of London with a black round hat and an umbrella, carefully monitoring time to make sure you don't miss tea time. And this tea time consists of drinking tea with milk (gasp) in dated china (bonus points if it has pictures of the royalty on it), while eating dreadful cookies and making small talk with an old lady (bonus points if it's your wife).
That's what the French believe, and that's why we hate you too
I have been to "English" pubs in Canada and Texas though. Typically really good beers, good chairs and lots of wood.
The above said there were difference s North and South. Like what? For instance North Texas actually gets cold. South Texas doesn't know what cold is and the language is Spanish.
The above said there were difference s North and South. Like what? For instance North Texas actually gets cold. South Texas doesn't know what cold is and the language is Spanish.
Wales isn't England; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island are all separate countries but we are ruled under a single union with representation in our Government from each Country. It's kind of like states in America: you're ruled under one government but each state has some variation in local laws.
The North is Colder than the South but not by too much. The main difference is in the culture, generally you find Northerners much more down to earth and chatty (though maybe that's because Southerners sometimes have a hard time understanding Northerners).
The above said there were difference s North and South. Like what? For instance North Texas actually gets cold. South Texas doesn't know what cold is and the language is Spanish.
Wales is Wales. It is it's own country with it's own language, derived from the original celtic language of Britain. It is culturally pretty distinct from England. They do also speak English there, but it is quite common to hear Welsh spoken in the street in some parts of Wales which I think is great.
The difference between the North and the South?
...in the North everyone is Working Class and wears a flatcap, drinks strong tea you can stand a spoon up in, used to be a coal miner/was born in a coal mine and keeps ferrets. The North is sometimes considered more friendly than the South.
...in the South everyone is a posh softie who is filthy rich, works for a big bank in London and has a flash car. People in the South are classier than people in the North (excluding Essex) and secretly take great pleasure from knowing they are paying for the existence of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Or, just think Game of Thrones, Starks vs. Lannisters.
Also don’t forget the southwest of the uk, where we aren’t all super rich or work for the banks in London. Where plenty of people have to eek out a living from tourism on the coastal areas.
Plus don’t even mention the roads that have pot holes so big you can fit a coffin in them with room to spare.
Saying that though they must have pot holes that big in London too considering they all drive massive city tractors.
xKillGorex wrote: Also don’t forget the southwest of the uk, where we aren’t all super rich or work for the banks in London. Where plenty of people have to eek out a living from tourism on the coastal areas.
Plus don’t even mention the roads that have pot holes so big you can fit a coffin in them with room to spare.
Saying that though they must have pot holes that big in London too considering they all drive massive city tractors.
But everyone knows there's nowt west of Bristol bar the semi-mythical Isle of St Ives and the 2nd home archipelago
It is of course a little more complicated than that. Northerners tend to have a presumptuousness about them that encourages them to interject themselves into your life whether you like it or not, spout their own ideas as if they are gospel and take umbrage if you should even slightly disagree over the most trivial of details, and will bore you to the back teeth with frivolous gossip that nobody gives a rat's arse about.
I'm not saying northerners are worse than southerners (I have a separate bag of gripes about that insular lot) but I would like to dispel the myth that they breed a nicer crop of people up north. Both north and south have their faults. Midlanders of course are perfectly welcoming hosts with good humour and humility
Always maintain Britain is the only sensible nation in Europe.
I thought you guys did not want to be part of Europe?
Politically. Unfortunately, the technology to turn Britain into a floating island and sale off into the Atlantic is still in the works.
Henry wrote:It is of course a little more complicated than that. Northerners tend to have a presumptuousness about them that encourages them to interject themselves into your life whether you like it or not, spout their own ideas as if they are gospel and take umbrage if you should even slightly disagree over the most trivial of details, and will bore you to the back teeth with frivolous gossip that nobody gives a rat's arse about.
I'm not saying northerners are worse than southerners (I have a separate bag of gripes about that insular lot) but I would like to dispel the myth that they breed a nicer crop of people up north. Both north and south have their faults. Midlanders of course are perfectly welcoming hosts with good humour and humility
Dear God no, the Midlands are the worst! At least Southerners have a bit about them.
I remember seeing a map based on a poll that asked people whether they thought named towns and cities were in the north or south.
The final line on the map ran almost straight from Lincoln to Bristol, a north to south drop of roughly 130 miles. We're a bit funny in where we think one begins and the other ends.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a lot in the theory around education. For example during WW2 there was more or less complete acceptance that the British (i.e. English) Empire was a good thing, and nowadays there is a lot more critical appraisal, for example of Britain's role in the slace trade.
Britain's role in the slave trade was largely to end it. However it is yet another example of modern revisionism.
That's complete crap.
Britain traded massively in slaves from the 16th to the early 19th century. Just look at the National Archives for accounting records of it.
The slave trade was abolished in 1807, and slavery itself in 1833.
The British were the first major abolitionists and also actively policed the Atlantic whenever possible. Note that at the time the abolitionist movement in the UK, slavery was acceptable in most of the developed world.
To highlight the British as responsible for the slave trade is dishonest, back when the British were shipping slaves anyone else with the capability was also doing same, but the British were the first to reform stop and bring an end to it.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
What are you warbling about. Confronted by the English, as in, it is something they have to face up to and reconcile for their own peace of mind.
Scots and, to an extent, the Welsh tended to see "British" as being something above individual national identity, which for a long time we were trained to view as backwards, parochial, and crass(or at least, see our own national identities that way), but the thing is that's never really been how the English and the English establishment especially looked at things. Britishness was simply Greater Englishness, Englishness Plus, a kind of Englishness that the non-English were permitted, with appropriate deference, to aspire to, in the same way that Britain itself was always in truth the English Empire and the rest of us were merely supposed to be glad to be ruled by it and to be permitted to contribute to it and conform to its norms and values.
This isn't really the case. The UK has been very harmonious, the raise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism is a very recent occurance and has much to do with the divide an rule policy of the Blair years. Prior to Blair Plaid Cymru and the SNP were fringe joke parties with very little support.
However now we have the myth of England vs everyone else, engineered for party benefit that has largely backfired.
Britishness invoked the ideal of the United Kingdom, which while England was the economic and geographical central component it based on a unified identity to which the Scottish and Welsh identity was a protected part and no less than the whole.
This is evidenced by the fact that the relationships of the UK have been long established but the specific rhetoric in critique of it is a recent phenomena, were the problem real it would have surfaced as a large scale unrest a lot earlier.
I always wonder - when someone spouts off with this kind of stuff, is it trolling, selective memory, or genuine ignorance?
The rise of the SNP and Plaid as actual political prospects in their respective countries is relatively recent, the idea that Scottish & Welsh nationalism just sprouted out of the ground in 2007 is a complete farce. The idea that there was no criticism of the UK from that perspective beforehand is likewise sheer farce, as is this fiction that criticism of that sort only came from the SNP and hardline "separatists". Blair thought devolution was a terrible idea, it was his Scottish MPs who convinced him they had no choice but to go forward, and the reason Labour in Scotland got to that stage over 20 years ago in the mid 90's is the result of a chain of events that started back in the bloody 40's with the Scottish Covenant, leading eventually to the first devolution referendum in '79, all the way through the creation of the Scottish Constitutional Convention comprised of just about everybody from Labour & LibDem MPs to church leaders, and their publishing of the Claim of Right in 1989. The sentiment that Scotland as a polity was not being well represented by the UK has been gaining ground for fifty years, the only difference between then and now is that back then people up here largely trusted Labour and believed devolution would be sufficient to address their complaints, and for a lot of folk neither of those things is true any longer.
And that's just the recent bout - shall we go back and discuss the founder of the Labour Party supporting Home Rule for Scotland in sodding 1900? Or the post-Jacobite push by union-supporting Scots that led to the creation of the Scotland Office in the late 1800's?
Harmonious my hairy haggis
EDIT:
*reads slavery stuff*
Oh, so just sheer wilful denial of reality then, gotcha.
The above said there were difference s North and South. Like what? For instance North Texas actually gets cold. South Texas doesn't know what cold is and the language is Spanish.
Crudely put it's more or less the inverse of the situation in the USA :
here it's the south which is full of snobby, effete metropolitan types with their odd views.
Whilst the north is , of course, full of inbred country bumpkin types who cling to their old fashioned ways and sneer contemptuously at their southern neighbours for their decadent ways.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a lot in the theory around education. For example during WW2 there was more or less complete acceptance that the British (i.e. English) Empire was a good thing, and nowadays there is a lot more critical appraisal, for example of Britain's role in the slace trade.
Britain's role in the slave trade was largely to end it. However it is yet another example of modern revisionism.
That's complete crap.
Britain traded massively in slaves from the 16th to the early 19th century. Just look at the National Archives for accounting records of it.
The slave trade was abolished in 1807, and slavery itself in 1833.
The British were the first major abolitionists and also actively policed the Atlantic whenever possible. Note that at the time the abolitionist movement in the UK, slavery was acceptable in most of the developed world.
To highlight the British as responsible for the slave trade is dishonest, back when the British were shipping slaves anyone else with the capability was also doing same, but the British were the first to reform stop and bring an end to it.
Orlanth wrote:Britain's role in the slave trade was largely to end it.
The above said there were difference s North and South. Like what? For instance North Texas actually gets cold. South Texas doesn't know what cold is and the language is Spanish.
Crudely put it's more or less the inverse of the situation in the USA :
here it's the south which is full of snobby, effete metropolitan types with their odd views.
Whilst the north is , of course, full of inbred country bumpkin types who cling to their old fashioned ways and sneer contemptuously at their southern neighbours for their decadent ways.
Hey, I'll admit to clinging to my old fashioned values and sneering contemptuously at the more modernized Southerners but inbreeding is East Anglia territory, don't lump us in with them!
I remember seeing a map based on a poll that asked people whether they thought named towns and cities were in the north or south.
The final line on the map ran almost straight from Lincoln to Bristol, a north to south drop of roughly 130 miles. We're a bit funny in where we think one begins and the other ends.
Edit: Ah, here it is I think
What poll is this in which Welsh people claimed to be Northerners? Also, I tend to find those from Lincolnshire wish to be lumped in with the North rather than the South.
If you go by that map then I’m 50/50 southener and northerner.
In all honesty I think England on a whole would benefit from walling up London and using it as a giant fish tank, while moving the capital back up north.
All joking aside, had a family holiday at Easter up Nottingham and yes they were a lot more friendly and welcoming than most people in the south, but we aren’t all that bad down here.
Brummies aren't fething Northern or Southern you gits! Someone said it earlier for you nincompoops - we're Midlanders. We don't associate ourselves with the lax, unemployed North full of farmers, nor the money-grabbing life of the Southerns types living in the big smog.
Believe it or not there might be another completely different identity that you have no idea even exists, likely because you spend your entire time arguing over which of your own identities is best.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Brummies aren't fething Northern or Southern you gits! Someone said it earlier for you nincompoops - we're Midlanders. We don't associate ourselves with the lax, unemployed North full of farmers, nor the money-grabbing life of the Southerns types living in the big smog.
Believe it or not there might be another completely different identity that you have no idea even exists, likely because you spend your entire time arguing over which of your own identities is best.
Perhaps, but both Southerners and Northerners will unite in their detest of the inbred, animal shagging lands of the midlands. The only reason that there is a midlands is that neither the South, nor the North wishes to be associated with ya.
Now 'xcuse me while I get back to Whippets and I'll let ya get back to your Cousin.
mrhappyface wrote: Perhaps, but both Southerners and Northerners will unite in their detest of the inbred, animal shagging lands of the midlands. The only reason that there is a midlands is that neither the South, nor the North wishes to be associated with ya.
Now 'xcuse me while I get back to Whippets and I'll let ya get back to your Cousin.
A....
Bu.....
Touche.
Mercia was legit the gak back in the day though, till those damn Wessex lot connived us from our territories.
Perhaps, but both Southerners and Northerners will unite in their detest of the inbred, animal shagging lands of the midlands. The only reason that there is a midlands is that neither the South, nor the North wishes to be associated with ya.
Now 'xcuse me while I get back to Whippets and I'll let ya get back to your Cousin.
See, when we started this you didn't even know we existed.
And now you already know us as intimately as I know my aunt.
Perhaps, but both Southerners and Northerners will unite in their detest of the inbred, animal shagging lands of the midlands. The only reason that there is a midlands is that neither the South, nor the North wishes to be associated with ya.
Now 'xcuse me while I get back to Whippets and I'll let ya get back to your Cousin.
See, when we started this you didn't even know we existed.
And now you already know us as intimately as I know my aunt.
Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
What are you warbling about. Confronted by the English, as in, it is something they have to face up to and reconcile for their own peace of mind.
Scots and, to an extent, the Welsh tended to see "British" as being something above individual national identity, which for a long time we were trained to view as backwards, parochial, and crass(or at least, see our own national identities that way), but the thing is that's never really been how the English and the English establishment especially looked at things. Britishness was simply Greater Englishness, Englishness Plus, a kind of Englishness that the non-English were permitted, with appropriate deference, to aspire to, in the same way that Britain itself was always in truth the English Empire and the rest of us were merely supposed to be glad to be ruled by it and to be permitted to contribute to it and conform to its norms and values.
This isn't really the case. The UK has been very harmonious, the raise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism is a very recent occurance and has much to do with the divide an rule policy of the Blair years. Prior to Blair Plaid Cymru and the SNP were fringe joke parties with very little support.
However now we have the myth of England vs everyone else, engineered for party benefit that has largely backfired.
Britishness invoked the ideal of the United Kingdom, which while England was the economic and geographical central component it based on a unified identity to which the Scottish and Welsh identity was a protected part and no less than the whole.
This is evidenced by the fact that the relationships of the UK have been long established but the specific rhetoric in critique of it is a recent phenomena, were the problem real it would have surfaced as a large scale unrest a lot earlier.
I always wonder - when someone spouts off with this kind of stuff, is it trolling, selective memory, or genuine ignorance?
The rise of the SNP and Plaid as actual political prospects in their respective countries is relatively recent, the idea that Scottish & Welsh nationalism just sprouted out of the ground in 2007 is a complete farce. The idea that there was no criticism of the UK from that perspective beforehand is likewise sheer farce, as is this fiction that criticism of that sort only came from the SNP and hardline "separatists". Blair thought devolution was a terrible idea, it was his Scottish MPs who convinced him they had no choice but to go forward, and the reason Labour in Scotland got to that stage over 20 years ago in the mid 90's is the result of a chain of events that started back in the bloody 40's with the Scottish Covenant, leading eventually to the first devolution referendum in '79, all the way through the creation of the Scottish Constitutional Convention comprised of just about everybody from Labour & LibDem MPs to church leaders, and their publishing of the Claim of Right in 1989. The sentiment that Scotland as a polity was not being well represented by the UK has been gaining ground for fifty years, the only difference between then and now is that back then people up here largely trusted Labour and believed devolution would be sufficient to address their complaints, and for a lot of folk neither of those things is true any longer.
And that's just the recent bout - shall we go back and discuss the founder of the Labour Party supporting Home Rule for Scotland in sodding 1900? Or the post-Jacobite push by union-supporting Scots that led to the creation of the Scotland Office in the late 1800's?
Harmonious my hairy haggis
EDIT:
*reads slavery stuff*
Oh, so just sheer wilful denial of reality then, gotcha.
I honestly thought he was trolling or having a laugh too, reading his entire post I thought he must be trying to parody the exact kind of daily mail reading nutjobs I was referring to... I really hope he was
The rise of the SNP and Plaid as actual political prospects in their respective countries is relatively recent, the idea that Scottish & Welsh nationalism just sprouted out of the ground in 2007 is a complete farce.
You will always get seperatism where you have two or more cultures. There are for instance Cornish nationalists, and have been for a long time. They are not active or in any numbers.
The idea that there was no criticism of the UK from that perspective beforehand is likewise sheer farce,
Criticism, from the fringe. Nowadays you have a hardcore Scottish government that even goes as far as to ban the flying of the Union flag on all but a very limited number of occasions.
Not farce, reality.
I honestly thought he was trolling or having a laugh too, reading his entire post I thought he must be trying to parody the exact kind of daily mail reading nutjobs I was referring to... I really hope he was
I can think your myself, thankyou.
Try it, it will do you good.
I am not lying. You even mentioned the facts yourself. The UK banned slavery in the very early 19th century, and were early adopters of abolitionism.
Morality is a progression. Back the idea of modern democracy was proposed it was acceptable to keep blacks as slaves. Back when abolitionism was proposed it was unthinkable to give women the vote, back when female suffrage was acceptable, it was also acceptable to have open discriminatory hiring practices, and so on and so forth.
Bottom line is that the UK track record is acceptable, and the modern UK has been early adopters of rights.
The trouble is there is a lot of brainwashing, the UK is seen as a racist slaver culture due to extreme bias and revisionism in our education system. If you looked at the UK with said skewed vision you would indeed see a lot of evils. Welcome to the human race. Yes the British did bad things under the empire, so did everyone else. We even have for instance a de-colonialisation movement expecting the UK to get out of the Falklands, even though it never had an indigenous population, and the people we would hand the lands over to have never legally held it and are themselves of a Spanish colonial culture which is at least as bad and in many cases a whole lot worse than what the British were ever up to.
The Falklands is a good case study for understanding historical revisionism for this reason. I can understand the Argentine population howling for the islands, they have been spoonfed nationalist propaganda and it has not been countered to any degree, which the Foreign Office must share blame for, however that hogwash is now being spouted by a sizable portion of our own people.
I am under no illusions that our historical record is perfect, however it is all too common for the UK and the UK alone to be judged for the actions of previous centuries according to the moralities of the present. Were you aware of it, this higher bar is in many ways an unintended complement.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Welsh pronunciation can get a whole lot more involved than that.
I am not lying. You even mentioned the facts yourself. The UK banned slavery in the very early 19th century, and were early adopters of abolitionism.
You are a liar. You said Britain's main role in the slave trade was to ban it. That is a lie and you know it..
Read the history on the link you posted.
We took slaves when slavery was a commonplace ideology, became early adopters of abolitionism and then work very hard to remove the slave trade.
Let me explain it another way.
Were the early Victorians sexist? You might think an immediate 'yes' and with good reason at face value because womens rights were not in evidence.
However at the time it was acceptable to consider women inferior, and unthinkable to give them the vote.
We think the opposite today but there has to be a time for a change of ideology, live prior to those times and you live in a different world.
You could conclude that the Uk is 99.99% sexist because in all our history we only introduced full equality in female voting in 1970. However that would be a skewed perspective as people groups change over time.
Yes the British trafficked slaves, they got those slaves from African tribes who sold other captured tribes into captivity, and sometimes from other Europeans, or sometimes captured slaves themselves. The thing is, everyone was up to it, including the African tribes who sold the slaves. Abolition had to be born as a modern concept before slavery was dealt with. By being early adopters the UK traveled a different path.
Americans can be justly proud of Thomas Jefferson, a humanist and polymath. He wrote treatises on democracy equality and human decency from his home in Montiocello house. Which is also where he kept his black slaves. He saw little contradiction in proposing open democracy and rights of citizens while enslaving Africans, because that was not the thinking of the time. It would be wrong to paint Jefferson as a barbarian. He lived prior to the abolitionist movements full call.
What matters is what one does after ones eyes are opened. The British track record is that once slavery was seen as a social wrong the British government expended a lot of resources to end it. That is the true legacy. Colonialism itself however was not at that time seen as a wrong.....
Formosa wrote: Is it me or did Orlanth go back and edit out all the crazy nonsense he posted previously ?
It is you. Though i did have to relabel a reply that was to Yodhrin that appeared to be to you because you didn't use the quote feature properly and Yodhrin's post was posted as your own. Don't blame me for that.
More importantly, it isn't crazy nonsense if I explain myself properly, which I do; it's content that you don't like, which is a different category.
Just handwaving way opinions you dislike as 'crazy' is neither rational nor enlightened, it is merely unthinking.
If you think my opinions crazy challenge them, say why, and give reasons. If you cant rationalise a reply then at least don't troll.
I am confused with my identity which may be "typical" Canadian:
- I am adopted and found out I am (somewhat) pure Scottish of Marr and Murray.
- I was born and raised in Southern Ontario but my area regularly holds highland games.
- We are a commonwealth member so... you-know.
- My favorite alcohol has always been Scotch.
- I am typically polite but tend to get into "backhanded compliments".
- My mother-in-law is Northern Ontario french so the abiding hatred is there.
To be English is to be secure in your ability to handle most circumstances and to be arrogant enough to believe people should receive your help unbidden.
Formosa wrote: Is it me or did Orlanth go back and edit out all the crazy nonsense he posted previously ?
It is you. Though i did have to relabel a reply that was to Yodhrin that appeared to be to you because you didn't use the quote feature properly and Yodhrin's post was posted as your own. Don't blame me for that.
More importantly, it isn't crazy nonsense if I explain myself properly, which I do; it's content that you don't like, which is a different category.
Just handwaving way opinions you dislike as 'crazy' is neither rational nor enlightened, it is merely unthinking.
If you think my opinions crazy challenge them, say why, and give reasons. If you cant rationalise a reply then at least don't troll.
“ It is intended that youn think that way. Here we see the 'brainwashing' of the last two decades at work from this observation. Flag flying in the UK is an interesting case study and a litmus test for the indoctrination from the New Labour era and its lasting damage. Fly the Welsh or Scottish national flags and that is cultural heritage under mutli-culturalism, flag the St George flag and its seen as far right. The same is also claimed of the Union flag. More on this later. “
Nope your right, it was further down, you use fancy words to basically say “you have been brainwashed idiot, Labour is evil herpa derp”
That’s why I called you a daily mail reading nutjob, as it’s this kind of crap that tabloid usually spouts and I’m making fun of you for it... because thats the British way !
“ It is intended that youn think that way. Here we see the 'brainwashing' of the last two decades at work from this observation. Flag flying in the UK is an interesting case study and a litmus test for the indoctrination from the New Labour era and its lasting damage. Fly the Welsh or Scottish national flags and that is cultural heritage under mutli-culturalism, flag the St George flag and its seen as far right. The same is also claimed of the Union flag. More on this later. “
Nope your right, it was further down, you use fancy words to basically say “you have been brainwashed idiot, Labour is evil herpa derp”
That’s why I called you a daily mail reading nutjob, as it’s this kind of crap that tabloid usually spouts and I’m making fun of you for it... because thats the British way !
Well you got to the crunch of it at least.
The brainwashing is done, a whole generation has grown up not giving a feth about cultural identity, and that was 'just as planned'. Schools were being transformed into 'Business Academys' in order not to teach history at all, partly this s cost cutting, but mostly it is a form of cultural sterilization.
Why would a government focus so heavily on multi-culturalism while at the same time divesting the English of their own culture unless there was an agenda behind it?
You dont need to go to the Daily Mail to evidence this, knowing close friends with kids and who see this first hand. Such as those who could not study Shakespeare's Henry V because it was 'racist', and another could not talk about his father being a soldier during a class on 'what does daddy do; because it was "offensive", while the kid who's father was in prison on drugs related charges got to speak.
It is anything but herpa derp, what is happening is fething alarming to anyone with the common sense to see it. A lot of people do notice but are frankly too jaded or worried to speak out lest they be assumed to be alt right.
Please learn to use the quotes function, it will make things easier in future for everyone.
“ It is intended that youn think that way. Here we see the 'brainwashing' of the last two decades at work from this observation. Flag flying in the UK is an interesting case study and a litmus test for the indoctrination from the New Labour era and its lasting damage. Fly the Welsh or Scottish national flags and that is cultural heritage under mutli-culturalism, flag the St George flag and its seen as far right. The same is also claimed of the Union flag. More on this later. “
Nope your right, it was further down, you use fancy words to basically say “you have been brainwashed idiot, Labour is evil herpa derp”
That’s why I called you a daily mail reading nutjob, as it’s this kind of crap that tabloid usually spouts and I’m making fun of you for it... because thats the British way !
Well you got to the crunch of it at least.
The brainwashing is done, a whole generation has grown up not giving a feth about cultural identity, and that was 'just as planned'. Schools were being transformed into 'Business Academys' in order not to teach history at all, partly this s cost cutting, but mostly it is a form of cultural sterilization.
Why would a government focus so heavily on multi-culturalism while at the same time divesting the English of their own culture unless there was an agenda behind it?
You dont need to go to the Daily Mail to evidence this, knowing close friends with kids and who see this first hand. Such as those who could not study Shakespeare's Henry V because it was 'racist', and another could not talk about his father being a soldier during a class on 'what does daddy do; because it was "offensive", while the kid who's father was in prison on drugs related charges got to speak.
It is anything but herpa derp, what is happening is fething alarming to anyone with the common sense to see it. A lot of people do notice but are frankly too jaded or worried to speak out lest they be assumed to be alt right.
Please learn to use the quotes function, it will make things easier in future for everyone.
Well I grew up all over the world within the RAF, coming back to the U.K. in the early 90’s and attending public school in Scotland and later England, with a mass of English history being taught and surrounded by English people I can safely say your assertion is wrong and is a bit conspiracy theory ish, the man reason why I call myself British first and welsh second is because attended schools in Wales, Scotland and England with the emphasis on learning the cultural history of all 3 respectively.
Anyone that thinks that the English heretige has been watered down due to multi culturalism is frankly a fool who doesn’t know the history of this country in the slightest, there is no such thing as an “Englishmen” were all just a mish mash of various European and home nation cultures and have always been, none of our legends are our own and just “borrowed” from France, Germany etc. Which ironically is why lord of the rings was written, Tolkien knew we had no real “English” mythologys.
So no, I’m not alarmed, just seeing the status quo of the changing English/welsh/scotish culture to fit new ideas and eventually turn them into our own, which is also another very British thing to do.
Frazzled wrote: Wow this thread has become almost American in it's hostility.
It's cause someone brought up a point in British history that a lot of Brits find touchy.
penalty shoot-outs ?
Don't even joke
I though you guys were still hung up about Mohamed Salah's injury.
Or maybe it's just the Egyptians, since he'll fully healed by the time the premier league starts again…
Well I grew up all over the world within the RAF, coming back to the U.K. in the early 90’s and attending public school in Scotland and later England, with a mass of English history being taught and surrounded by English people I can safely say your assertion is wrong and is a bit conspiracy theory ish, the man reason why I call myself British first and welsh second is because attended schools in Wales, Scotland and England with the emphasis on learning the cultural history of all 3 respectively.
Anyone that thinks that the English heretige has been watered down due to multi culturalism is frankly a fool who doesn’t know the history of this country in the slightest, there is no such thing as an “Englishmen” were all just a mish mash of various European and home nation cultures and have always been, none of our legends are our own and just “borrowed” from France, Germany etc. Which ironically is why lord of the rings was written, Tolkien knew we had no real “English” mythologys.
So no, I’m not alarmed, just seeing the status quo of the changing English/welsh/scotish culture to fit new ideas and eventually turn them into our own, which is also another very British thing to do.
First off you need to explain your upbringing. You grew up in the RAF? So both of your parents worked in the RAF presumably and their jobs were such high level that neither your mother or father could stay at home to raise you? Are they spies?
Secondly why are you investing yourself so much in a thread about Englishness if you consider yourself to be British first, Welsh second?
Finally you're completely wrong in your assertion that there's no such thing as an Englishman's identity. This very thread proves it. Most of us are intelligent enough to understand that we have a bit of the Roman, Scandinavian and dare I say it, French in our ancestry but that has little to no impact on there existing a separate English culture. So you when you, as a self identifying Welshman turns to a thread and says that there's no such thing as an Englishman you get my back up because that's exactly what I am and what I consider myself to be. My Grandad was of the Black Lake gypsies (think real peaky blinders) who I believe are of Irish descent. He considered himself English. His parents and their parents considered themselves English. At the time (not so much now thanks in part to the media) it was something to be proud of. This is what has changed - any pride in being English is considered uneducated and far right at best and flat rascist at worst. It's an absolute joke and makes me sick that pride in our identity is discouraged in this way while the Scots, Welsh and immigrant population are encouraged in the maintaining of the culture of their home country. You've only got to look at the Welsh language for evidence of this - the Welsh voted to remove it from school curriculum, ironically it was the English that said Welsh must be taught in Welsh schools to help maintain their identity.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Curious that you believe that it is a concern with this habit that is a problem, and not the habit itself.
This isn't really the case. The UK has been very harmonious, the raise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism is a very recent occurance and has much to do with the divide an rule policy of the Blair years.
Obviously untrue. It has unquestionably become more prominent in media focus and actual numbers, but it is not new, nor even new in the mainstream. That the majority of nationalists used to be in unionists parties has more to do with a two-party Westminster system than their lack of enthusiasm for devolution/independence.
Prior to Blair Plaid Cymru and the SNP were fringe joke parties with very little support.
Sorta. Prior to Blair there were no partial-PR elections to allow people to diversify their voting choices. The SNP took 29% of the vote at the very first Holyrood election. In the 1997 GE they only took a little below the LDs as a percentage of seats competed.
However now we have the myth of England vs everyone else, engineered for party benefit that has largely backfired.
Britishness invoked the ideal of the United Kingdom, which while England was the economic and geographical central component it based on a unified identity to which the Scottish and Welsh identity was a protected part and no less than the whole.
This is really top flight revisionism. Scots had two of their languages outlawed. They're still subject to extreme derision amongst the unionist parties that fight tooth and claw against any official use of one, and have so far successfully supressed the other, which most still deny can be described as anything other than Bad English. The clearances happened. The Poll Tax experiment. I'm not sufficiently expert on Wales, but to pretend that Scottish identity (itself highly varied, though generally unified in the English elite imagination) was protected by London-centric rulers and governments is nonsensical and disproven by 300 years of dismissal. That Scots are a resistant liability requiring domination is enshrined in the British National Anthem, for goodness sake.
Back as far as the 1980's the history curriculum would cover the history of the British isles. By the age of twelve I had been taught about Roman Britain, the Anglo Saxons, Norman Conquest continuously through to King John, the Tudors, Edward 1 through to Robert Bruce, the English Civil War and Jacobite rebellion. I got a grounding in the national identity. Then learned a more modern history covering the first half of the twentieth century as a teenager. In more recent years it is normally reduced to a form of very slanted social science. Restricting the curriculum to topics like womens suffrage, and post colonialism is common and is intended to both strip cultural and national identity while fostering a guilt mentality.
The current government woke up to this and in 2012 insisted that the curriculum covered a minimum of 200 years of continuous British history.
This is incredibly subjective. Fair enough that you think it is a problem, but it really must be qualified and it's necessary to acknowledge that it is subjective and contentious. I don't see why it is an issue unless you think education's job is to foster national identity, for instance, and think that's really a rather problematic goal. Quite aside from the fact that identity is itself subjective, fluid, and constantly (and rapidly) changing, and always has been, everywhere, I like to think education should teach people how to think, not instruct them what to know. I realise that educationalists themselves have largely lost that war, and now most people see the essential function of primary, secondary, and even tertiary education as worker-production, but it would be nice if schools could retain some effort to encourage students to approach historical narratives from different angles, and question the narratives that used to dominate.
What is in no doubt, is that refocussing some periods of history on its traditionally less-considered participants was never intended to either damage cultural or national identity nor to foster guilt. A cursory glance at the educational literature that, over decades, gradually led to these changes will teach you that. A case might be made that it has that result, but it is manifestly not its intention. That really is knee-jerking, Daily Mail reactionism.
Well I grew up all over the world within the RAF, coming back to the U.K. in the early 90’s and attending public school in Scotland and later England, with a mass of English history being taught and surrounded by English people I can safely say your assertion is wrong and is a bit conspiracy theory ish, the man reason why I call myself British first and welsh second is because attended schools in Wales, Scotland and England with the emphasis on learning the cultural history of all 3 respectively.
Anyone that thinks that the English heretige has been watered down due to multi culturalism is frankly a fool who doesn’t know the history of this country in the slightest, there is no such thing as an “Englishmen” were all just a mish mash of various European and home nation cultures and have always been, none of our legends are our own and just “borrowed” from France, Germany etc. Which ironically is why lord of the rings was written, Tolkien knew we had no real “English” mythologys.
So no, I’m not alarmed, just seeing the status quo of the changing English/welsh/scotish culture to fit new ideas and eventually turn them into our own, which is also another very British thing to do.
First off you need to explain your upbringing. You grew up in the RAF? So both of your parents worked in the RAF presumably and their jobs were such high level that neither your mother or father could stay at home to raise you? Are they spies?
Secondly why are you investing yourself so much in a thread about Englishness if you consider yourself to be British first, Welsh second?
Finally you're completely wrong in your assertion that there's no such thing as an Englishman's identity. This very thread proves it. Most of us are intelligent enough to understand that we have a bit of the Roman, Scandinavian and dare I say it, French in our ancestry but that has little to no impact on there existing a separate English culture. So you when you, as a self identifying Welshman turns to a thread and says that there's no such thing as an Englishman you get my back up because that's exactly what I am and what I consider myself to be. My Grandad was of the Black Lake gypsies (think real peaky blinders) who I believe are of Irish descent. He considered himself English. His parents and their parents considered themselves English. At the time (not so much now thanks in part to the media) it was something to be proud of. This is what has changed - any pride in being English is considered uneducated and far right at best and flat rascist at worst. It's an absolute joke and makes me sick that pride in our identity is discouraged in this way while the Scots, Welsh and immigrant population are encouraged in the maintaining of the culture of their home country. You've only got to look at the Welsh language for evidence of this - the Welsh voted to remove it from school curriculum, ironically it was the English that said Welsh must be taught in Welsh schools to help maintain their identity.
Self identifying BRITISH man, welsh second, because I understand that we are stronger as a county united, not as individual nations.
No I am correct that that there is no such thing as an Englishman, we’re all a massive mix of European cultures even a cursory knowledge of history would show you this, so when you say crap like “Scots, welsh, Irish and immigrants” what your actually saying is “just as it’s always been and will always be” but the media you so hate has convinced you that some grand conspiracy has happened and you bought it, even our language is different due to such things, they way we speak now is different from even 50 years ago, it’s evolving All the time like our culture. And claiming that French in our ancestry has little impact on us these days is plain stupid, even to this date it has a massive impact on our culture, same with the “vikings” Germans, Spanish etc. ,
Now to the hyjacking of the “English” national pride, there is a reason why people see it as racism, that’s because sadly the loudest people are those idiots who scream about it but are too stupid to even look at their own history, the bigotism and prejudism they use to surpress any discourse is as bad as any SJW crap the far left comes out with, but want to know the super squirrel secret ? Smart people know it’s not true! Dum dum duuuuuuum, we know that it’s ok to have English pride, we see it every day, in every walk of life, but the far right is Just from using your fear and ignorance to fan the flames against what they claim is a threat, they are lyers and it’s given “English” pride a bad name, it’s ok to be English, it’s not ok to use that as an excuse to be racist.
Formosa wrote: Self identifying BRITISH man, welsh second, because I understand that we are stronger as a county united, not as individual nations.
You identifying as a British man has absolutely 0 impact on the so called "strength" of the United Kingdom. Not sure if you noticed, but we're talking about identity, specifically the identity of what it is to be English, not what's best for the UK. Also 'British' didn't need to be in caps, I can read without them thanks.
Formosa wrote: No I am correct that that there is no such thing as an Englishman,
Glad we cleared that up, thanks.
Formosa wrote: we’re all a massive mix of European cultures even a cursory knowledge of history would show you this, so when you say crap like “Scots, welsh, Irish and immigrants” what your actually saying is “just as it’s always been and will always be” but the media you so hate has convinced you that some grand conspiracy has happened and you bought it, even our language is different due to such things, they way we speak now is different from even 50 years ago, it’s evolving All the time like our culture. And claiming that French in our ancestry has little impact on us these days is plain stupid, even to this date it has a massive impact on our culture, same with the “vikings” Germans, Spanish etc
I didn't say that our ancestry had little impact on us these days though did I? I said it had little impact on the existence of a separate English culture. Which it doesn't/didn't. An Englishman is not just a mismatch of cultures from a ton of different ancestral links, as you seem to believe (the English language is, though), they have THEIR OWN UNIQUE AND IDENTIFIABLE CULTURE. Have you ever met a Frenchman? A Spaniard? Compare them to an Englishman. Compare an Englishman to a Welsman or a Scot. Shouldn't be too hard to see they aren't the same and they have their own quirks, outside of any other culture that may or may not have impacted on their development. Also please don't presume to know my thoughts - the media hasn't convinced me of anything, I've made up my own mind based on experiences and gathering my own information. I don't read the Daily Mail or any other rag so cut your generalisations.
Formosa wrote: Now to the hyjacking of the “English” national pride, there is a reason why people see it as racism, that’s because sadly the loudest people are those idiots who scream about it but are too stupid to even look at their own history, the bigotism and prejudism they use to surpress any discourse is as bad as any SJW crap the far left comes out with, but want to know the super squirrel secret ? Smart people know it’s not true! Dum dum duuuuuuum, we know that it’s ok to have English pride, we see it every day, in every walk of life, but the far right is Just from using your fear and ignorance to fan the flames against what they claim is a threat, they are lyers and it’s given “English” pride a bad name, it’s ok to be English, it’s not ok to use that as an excuse to be racist.
They aren't the "loudest people", they are the people who are pushed by the media to be the loudest. You realise this yea? The media pushes an agenda and that agenda currently is that English pride is synonymous with racism. There have always been bigots and racists from England, just as there have always been Scottish and Welsh racists/bigots. I'm quite sure there are equivalent 'EDL' parties in Wales and Scotland - they just don't get the same sort of coverage that the EDL has, because that's not in the media's agenda. Look at Sinn Fein FFS - there you have effectively a legitimised terrorist organisation.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Why are words in Russian not pronounced phonetically as they are spelled in English? Why does russian have a different alphabet? Why is French not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Why is any language not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Come on
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Why are words in Russian not pronounced phonetically as they are spelled in English? Why does russian have a different alphabet? Why is French not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Why is any language not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Come on
Actually Russian is one of the most phonetically consistent languages out there. It just turns out that transliterating makes a bit of a mess of the whole thing.
Now if Russians did actually bother to actually write ë and not just think "everyone knows when it's ë and when it's a simple e" it would be much better.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Why are words in Russian not pronounced phonetically as they are spelled in English? Why does russian have a different alphabet? Why is French not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Why is any language not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Come on
Welsh is deliberately obtuse to annoy us English, and struggles with new fangled devices like the ffon, still least it's better than the pigen-Kobold the Cornish keep trying to Necro
Formosa wrote: Now to the hyjacking of the “English” national pride, there is a reason why people see it as racism, that’s because sadly the loudest people are those idiots who scream about it but are too stupid to even look at their own history, the bigotism and prejudism they use to surpress any discourse is as bad as any SJW crap the far left comes out with, but want to know the super squirrel secret ? Smart people know it’s not true! Dum dum duuuuuuum, we know that it’s ok to have English pride, we see it every day, in every walk of life, but the far right is Just from using your fear and ignorance to fan the flames against what they claim is a threat, they are lyers and it’s given “English” pride a bad name, it’s ok to be English, it’s not ok to use that as an excuse to be racist.
They aren't the "loudest people", they are the people who are pushed by the media to be the loudest. You realise this yea? The media pushes an agenda and that agenda currently is that English pride is synonymous with racism.
This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In terms of readership, vastly more print media that argues your position is consumed than that which argues that English pride is synonymous with racism. Broadcast media is harder to quantify, but both the BBC and Sky News love a good dose of ‘look how awesome England is’.
‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
There have always been bigots and racists from England, just as there have always been Scottish and Welsh racists/bigots.
Of course, but does anyone argue otherwise? Your antithesis is that English pride is synonynous with racism, not that English people are racist. Do you want to make a case that Scottish or Welsh pride overlaps with racism and xenophobia as frequently as English pride does? That is going to be a struggle.
I'm quite sure there are equivalent 'EDL' parties in Wales and Scotland - they just don't get the same sort of coverage that the EDL has
Two problems with this point: firstly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they don’t have the numbers. The SDL do ocassionally organise a march. Usually in Glasgow because of overlap with the Orange Order. The last one had less than two-dozen attendees. Mostly EDL people who had come up for the day (which we know because, funnily enough, it gets coverage proportionate to the event - in Scottish media).
Secondly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they are in countries that don’t get as much national coverage. UK national media is overwhelmingly Anglocentric.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Why are words in Russian not pronounced phonetically as they are spelled in English? Why does russian have a different alphabet? Why is French not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Why is any language not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Come on
Actually Russian is one of the most phonetically consistent languages out there. It just turns out that transliterating makes a bit of a mess of the whole thing.
Now if Russians did actually bother to actually write ë and not just think "everyone knows when it's ë and when it's a simple e" it would be much better.
But are all letters in Russian which are shared with English used to make exactly the same sounds? (Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine since people always say this about Irish names like Saoirse and so on - "Why isn't it pronounced how it is spelled?!" "It is. In Irish.")
nfe wrote: This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In terms of readership, vastly more print media that argues your position is consumed than that which argues that English pride is synonymous with racism. Broadcast media is harder to quantify, but both the BBC and Sky News love a good dose of ‘look how awesome England is’.
‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
You're going to have to back up some of your points with actual evidence.
You can't just say something and expect me to believe it as gospel because it came from your mouth/keyboard.
nfe wrote: Of course, but does anyone argue otherwise? Your antithesis is that English pride is synonynous with racism, not that English people are racist. Do you want to make a case that Scottish or Welsh pride overlaps with racism and xenophobia as frequently as English pride does? That is going to be a struggle.
It depends on what terms you are assessing the overlap? I'd be interested to know the figures in terms of relative population for sure. My case has nothing to do with the overlap between Scottish or Welsh pride and it's frequency of racism and xenophobia compared to English pride and you know it. You're strawmanning. My point is quite clear. The FOCUS is on English pride and it's synonymy with racism. Note my point about Sinn Fein which you seem to have ignored entirely?
nfe wrote: Two problems with this point: firstly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they don’t have the numbers. The SDL do ocassionally organise a march. Usually in Glasgow because of overlap with the Orange Order. The last one had less than two-dozen attendees. Mostly EDL people who had come up for the day (which we know because, funnily enough, it gets coverage proportionate to the event - in Scottish media).
Secondly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they are in countries that don’t get as much national coverage. UK national media is overwhelmingly Anglocentric.
Scotland seems to enjoy it's fair share of national coverage actually. More than it's fair share given the relative population.
nfe wrote: This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In terms of readership, vastly more print media that argues your position is consumed than that which argues that English pride is synonymous with racism. Broadcast media is harder to quantify, but both the BBC and Sky News love a good dose of ‘look how awesome England is’.
‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
You're going to have to back up some of your points with actual evidence.
nfe wrote: Of course, but does anyone argue otherwise? Your antithesis is that English pride is synonynous with racism, not that English people are racist. Do you want to make a case that Scottish or Welsh pride overlaps with racism and xenophobia as frequently as English pride does? That is going to be a struggle.
It depends on what terms you are assessing the overlap? I'd be interested to know the figures in terms of relative population for sure. My case has nothing to do with the overlap between Scottish or Welsh pride and it's frequency of racism and xenophobia compared to English pride and you know it. You're strawmanning. My point is quite clear. The FOCUS is on English pride and it's synonymy with racism. Note my point about Sinn Fein which you seem to have ignored entirely?
Ok. First things first. I don't think you know what a strawman is. A strawman argument is the misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easier to refute. I didn't do that. I pointed out that your comparison is invalid by stating precisely what you did. You are arguing that English pride is not synonymous with racism. As a comparison, you noted that there are also Welsh and Scottish racists. This is irrelevant because you are comparing the prevalence of racism amongst the people shouting loudest about English pride' with the prevalence of racism amongst the entire populations of Scotland and Wales. It could only be made relevant if you were to argue that people shouting loudest about Welsh and Scottish pride are as frequently equitable with racism as those doing so about English pride. I thought the point was obvious, apologies if not. Is the problem I want to foreground clearer now?
I didn't address Sinn Fein because it was going to run off down a road about what constitutes a valid political party almost instantly, a bunch of Northern Irish members would rightfully take umbrage at either side, and we'd get a thread derail/lock in quick time.
nfe wrote: Two problems with this point: firstly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they don’t have the numbers. The SDL do ocassionally organise a march. Usually in Glasgow because of overlap with the Orange Order. The last one had less than two-dozen attendees. Mostly EDL people who had come up for the day (which we know because, funnily enough, it gets coverage proportionate to the event - in Scottish media).
Secondly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they are in countries that don’t get as much national coverage. UK national media is overwhelmingly Anglocentric.
Scotland seems to enjoy it's fair share of national coverage actually. More than it's fair share given the relative population.
Now it's going to be your turn to provide some numbers.
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
Why are words in Russian not pronounced phonetically as they are spelled in English? Why does russian have a different alphabet? Why is French not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Why is any language not pronounced as it is spelled in English? Come on
Actually Russian is one of the most phonetically consistent languages out there. It just turns out that transliterating makes a bit of a mess of the whole thing.
Now if Russians did actually bother to actually write ë and not just think "everyone knows when it's ë and when it's a simple e" it would be much better.
But are all letters in Russian which are shared with English used to make exactly the same sounds? (Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine since people always say this about Irish names like Saoirse and so on - "Why isn't it pronounced how it is spelled?!" "It is. In Irish.")
Pretty much yes. Ш is sh as in sheep and Ц is ts like in, say, pizza.
If English would get their vowels in order it would be much more straightforward
Do you Brits ever get an sense of who is English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish on Dakka Dakka absent obvious references in their posts? (I have no clue from whence other posters with American flags might hail.)
Manchu wrote: Do you Brits ever get an sense of who is English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish on Dakka Dakka absent obvious references in their posts? (I have no clue from whence other posters with American flags might hail.)
well of course, its a very small island, with only 60 million(ish) people so its inevitable we bump into each other at her Maj's tea and cucumber sandwich afternoons
nfe wrote: This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In terms of readership, vastly more print media that argues your position is consumed than that which argues that English pride is synonymous with racism. Broadcast media is harder to quantify, but both the BBC and Sky News love a good dose of ‘look how awesome England is’.
‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
You're going to have to back up some of your points with actual evidence.
It gives no reason as to why people read such newspapers - you are making massive, sweeping assumptions that may well be (are) false. Where is your evidence that those with English pride who are racist are "the loudest people"?
nfe wrote: Ok. First things first. I don't think you know what a strawman is. A strawman argument is the misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easier to refute. I didn't do that. I pointed out that your comparison is invalid by stating precisely what you did. You are arguing that English pride is not synonymous with racism. As a comparison, you noted that there are also Welsh and Scottish racists. This is irrelevant because you are comparing the prevalence of racism amongst the people shouting loudest about English pride' with the prevalence of racism amongst the entire populations of Scotland and Wales. It could only be made relevant if you were to argue that people shouting loudest about Welsh and Scottish pride are as frequently equitable with racism as those doing so about English pride. I thought the point was obvious, apologies if not. Is the problem I want to foreground clearer now?
I don't think you understand my argument, to be frank. It is thus - English pride is not synonymous with racism (correct) however much of the media portrays it as such and hence there is a negative association with having English pride because you are generally assumed to be a racist or at least uneducated. You can see this in my previous post. My other point regarding Scotland and Wales you seem to have misunderstood too - it being - those who show a pride in Scotland, or Wales are not tarred with the same racist/uneducated brush that the English are, in fact it's quite the opposite. I believe that there are racists from all nationalities in the UK and the pride they show in their country is largely irrelevant. Hence the EDL/SDL/WDL comparison. EDL picks up the majority of "airtime" because this is what the media wishes to portray. The same can be said for English football hooligans abroad and any other nation's hooligan's abroad, who are treated (in my opinion) quite differently in the media.
I hope that makes more sense?
nfe wrote: I didn't address Sinn Fein because it was going to run off down a road about what constitutes a valid political party almost instantly, a bunch of Northern Irish members would rightfully take umbrage at either side, and we'd get a thread derail/lock in quick time.
nfe wrote: Two problems with this point: firstly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they don’t have the numbers. The SDL do ocassionally organise a march. Usually in Glasgow because of overlap with the Orange Order. The last one had less than two-dozen attendees. Mostly EDL people who had come up for the day (which we know because, funnily enough, it gets coverage proportionate to the event - in Scottish media).
Secondly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they are in countries that don’t get as much national coverage. UK national media is overwhelmingly Anglocentric.
Scotland seems to enjoy it's fair share of national coverage actually. More than it's fair share given the relative population.
Now it's going to be your turn to provide some numbers.
nfe wrote: This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In terms of readership, vastly more print media that argues your position is consumed than that which argues that English pride is synonymous with racism. Broadcast media is harder to quantify, but both the BBC and Sky News love a good dose of ‘look how awesome England is’.
‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
You're going to have to back up some of your points with actual evidence.
It gives no reason as to why people read such newspapers - you are making massive, sweeping assumptions that may well be (are) false.
It demonstrates the circulation of print media and shows that the top end of the table is dominated by the papers that are, by and large, effusive in their English (and British) pride.
Where is your evidence that those with English pride who are racist are "the loudest people"?
Well I suppose it depends on how you define loudest. For me, that implies the people who spend the most time telling others that they are proud of being English, and go out of their way to broadcast that most often. A particularly 'loud' group might be, for instance, people who stick 'Proud to be English' in their Twitter bio.
nfe wrote: Ok. First things first. I don't think you know what a strawman is. A strawman argument is the misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easier to refute. I didn't do that. I pointed out that your comparison is invalid by stating precisely what you did. You are arguing that English pride is not synonymous with racism. As a comparison, you noted that there are also Welsh and Scottish racists. This is irrelevant because you are comparing the prevalence of racism amongst the people shouting loudest about English pride' with the prevalence of racism amongst the entire populations of Scotland and Wales. It could only be made relevant if you were to argue that people shouting loudest about Welsh and Scottish pride are as frequently equitable with racism as those doing so about English pride. I thought the point was obvious, apologies if not. Is the problem I want to foreground clearer now?
I don't think you understand my argument, to be frank. It is thus - English pride is not synonymous with racism (correct) however much of the media portrays it as such and hence there is a negative association with having English pride because you are generally assumed to be a racist or at least uneducated.
Given I've addressed every component of this, which part did I misunderstand?
My other point regarding Scotland and Wales you seem to have misunderstood too - it being - those who show a pride in Scotland, or Wales are not tarred with the same racist/uneducated brush that the English are, in fact it's quite the opposite.
Ok. Great. You didn't say this. You went straight from people equating English pride and racism to racism being a general feature of society. This is a perfectly valid comparison if true. I don't think you have a hope of demonstrating it, alas.
I believe that there are racists from all nationalities in the UK and the pride they show in their country is largely irrelevant. Hence the EDL/SDL/WDL comparison. EDL picks up the majority of "airtime" because this is what the media wishes to portray. The same can be said for English football hooligans abroad and any other nation's hooligan's abroad, who are treated (in my opinion) quite differently in the media.
I hope that makes more sense?
It does, but you now need to demonstrate two things: that national pride is not a multiplier and; that racism is equally prevalent amongst these groups. All things being equal, are people who state that they are proud of their heritage more likely to be racist than those who do not? That's a question that's probably actually quite easily demonstrated by a wealth of cross-cultural sociological, anthropological, and ethnographic studies - I' happy to go and find a bunch if you don't think it's likely.
The questions that must be asked to support the second issue are more difficult. Do SDL members represent a similar proportion of the Scottish population as EDL members do of the English population, for instance? Are Scots who are the most outwardly prideful of their heritage (by any measure you choose, provided it is consistent) as likely to also be racist as their English peers? Were we to utilise the flippant Twitter bio yardstick above and contrast people identifying themselves as proud to be English, Welsh, or Scottish, are they each as likely to be tweeting, liking, and retweeting racist material? Are the antisocial behaviour, violence, and arrest records of English, Scottish, and Welsh football fans similar (if adjusted for frequency of international appearances and size of travelling support)?
nfe wrote: I didn't address Sinn Fein because it was going to run off down a road about what constitutes a valid political party almost instantly, a bunch of Northern Irish members would rightfully take umbrage at either side, and we'd get a thread derail/lock in quick time.
Presumptuous and convenient.
Realistic. However, for the sake of it, it's a separate issue. Irish nationalism is not so often associated with racism as English pride is, no doubt. It is, however, relentlessly associated with ethnic tension and religious bigotry. We had a near year long non-stop campaign across most of the media tying Jeremy Corbyn to Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness specifically on the basis that they were anti-UK. Consequently, I don't think it really supports your position that English pride is vilified whereas everyone else gets a free pass.
nfe wrote: Two problems with this point: firstly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they don’t have the numbers. The SDL do ocassionally organise a march. Usually in Glasgow because of overlap with the Orange Order. The last one had less than two-dozen attendees. Mostly EDL people who had come up for the day (which we know because, funnily enough, it gets coverage proportionate to the event - in Scottish media).
Secondly, they don’t get as much national coverage because they are in countries that don’t get as much national coverage. UK national media is overwhelmingly Anglocentric.
Scotland seems to enjoy it's fair share of national coverage actually. More than it's fair share given the relative population.
Now it's going to be your turn to provide some numbers.
I provided raw numbers demonstrating that readership of UK national papers leans heavily towards papers who endorse English pride - supporting the precise point that I made. To support your point, you'll need to demonstrate that Scottish coverage represents more than 8.2% of all national news media coverage. I think that's going to be a challenge, but I'll be very impressed if you can find some numbers to support it. You can probably end the Scottish 6 debate immediately!
Well I grew up all over the world within the RAF, coming back to the U.K. in the early 90’s and attending public school in Scotland and later England, with a mass of English history being taught and surrounded by English people I can safely say your assertion is wrong and is a bit conspiracy theory ish, the man reason why I call myself British first and welsh second is because attended schools in Wales, Scotland and England with the emphasis on learning the cultural history of all 3 respectively.
Public schools are an entirely separate dynamic, it costs a lot nowadays even with the service discount, and for the most part your parents get what they pay for.
The dogma is applied mostly to the state sector.
I too was privately educated, but in my schooldays, the 70's and early 80's, the curriculum was widespread and history was taught in full as part of the national curriculum. The experience I had was echoed in and similar to the state sector. When the national curriculum was cut threadbare with regards to history teaching, many of the quality private schools continued to teach history.
Anyone that thinks that the English heretige has been watered down due to multi culturalism is frankly a fool who doesn’t know the history of this country in the slightest, there is no such thing as an “Englishmen” were all just a mish mash of various European and home nation cultures and have always been, none of our legends are our own and just “borrowed” from France, Germany etc.
No such thing as Englishmen. Seen that trotted out a bit but not a for a while as it was a largely outdated piece of dogma that is too easy to refute. Every geneology is a mish-mash unless they come very an exceptionally isolated community like in the deep amazon rainforest or a tribe in the tundra.
However the idea that there is not such thing as the English is not a mantra applied to anyone else, and is there as a doctrinal beatstick. Is there such a thing as a Scot or Welsh but your definition? There would not be, not every Scot is a descendant of a Pict, there is a lot of Norse blood too, and English, and others.
The Welsh are a similar mixed bag, part old Celt, part Roman, part Norse, part Saxon, part Norman, and that is just the pre-dominant wave cultures, not subset communities or recent wave immigrations. I would never deny that they are Welsh.
You deny the revisionism then proof its effect by your own words. Yes there are such things as Englishmen, Scots Welsh etc, they all exist. We exist.
You swallowed the dogma and it has skewed your thinking remarkably: proud to be Welsh while simultaneously believing that the English do not exist as a racial group.
Which ironically is why lord of the rings was written, Tolkien knew we had no real “English” mythologys.
Tolkien was comparing the Arthurian myth which are pre-English and also romaniticised (literally as given a Frankish/Latin cultural makeover), with extent myths from France (Roland) and Norse and Germanic myths and seeing that the predominant mythic cycle was indeed not English.
England had a large mythology but only that which was written down survived. Beowulf and a handfful of other tales. There is quite a lot, but to Tolkien who knew all the recorded Saxon myths as part of his primary trade despaired on comparing it to the Celt and Manx bardic traditions which are considerably larger. The Celt and Manx bards survived, and their legacy is enormous* the Saxons had bards too, but there was a cultural disconnect after 1066 and other those myths important enough to be written down survived, and likely only a fraction of those.
Tolkien was troubled by this because it was a legacy of the cultural extermination that occurred under the Norman invasion, a notably vibrant culture was all but made extinct. The fact that the Saxons were advanced for their time is undisputed, it was the tail end of Saxon organisation that allowed the compilation of the Domesday book, though that was also due to the centralised control culture of the Normans.
Post Norman Conquest the English still produced legends but both were in terms of rebels against the crown, Hereward the Wake and Robin Hood.
Robin Hood is as large a cultural milestone as the French legend of Roland, and is proof of a regenerating post-Saxon English mythology.
Tolkien was more concerned with not that there was no English mythology at all, but that a very deep mythology and culture of the English peoples was systemically destroyed post 1066. a cultural subtype closely connected to his career as a a profession of Anglo-Saxon language and history.
* This is also a problem, the last Manx bard died in the 1980's and the last Irish Celt bards are dying out. People do not have the patience or mindset to memorise myth, however the full repertoire of both was recorded copied and kept so the myths will survive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: First off you need to explain your upbringing. You grew up in the RAF? So both of your parents worked in the RAF presumably and their jobs were such high level that neither your mother or father could stay at home to raise you? Are they spies?
Strange bedfellows. Going to briefly defend Formosa here.
service families get a bursary for a heavy discount to private education fees. This is partly a means of creating a next generation of officer class, part a perk of the job but mostly because with service personnel being moved around a lot education can be very disruptive. If you are in private business and your employer says you are to work in an offsite office for three years you can expect a bonus, or can refuse. In the armed services you can do neither, and you can go to prison for trying. So there has to be some mitigation for daddy just got sent away to [foreign country] for several years. The best answer is to give the kids heavily discounted boarding school fees. A lot of private schools make their main income out of service families.
All Foreign office workers and all non-Fioereign Office civil servants over a certain grade get the same privilege.
This is what has changed - any pride in being English is considered uneducated and far right at best and flat racist at worst. It's an absolute joke and makes me sick that pride in our identity is discouraged in this way while the Scots, Welsh and immigrant population are encouraged in the maintaining of the culture of their home country.
The brainwashing at work, selective empowerment and disempowerment to reforge the public conscience for party political gain.
It works on some, as evidenced, and not on others, also as evidenced.
You've only got to look at the Welsh language for evidence of this - the Welsh voted to remove it from school curriculum, ironically it was the English that said Welsh must be taught in Welsh schools to help maintain their identity.
Orlanth wrote: : proud to be Welsh while simultaneously believing that the English do not exist as a racial group.
I'm with you on everything apart from this. English is not a racial group. It may be national or cultural, but is deffinitely not racial. Within the English there are regional differences in heritage. More Scandinavian in the north east, Briton in the south west, Saxon in the south, Angle in the midlands.
And that's just the English. The Scots are equally a mish-mash of identities, being predominantly Caledonian, Irish, Norman and Briton. Try telling a Scottish person that there's no such thing as a Scotsman.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Curious that you believe that it is a concern with this habit that is a problem, and not the habit itself.
I am more concerned with the myth not the habit. Most English do not confuse Britishness with Englishness, we can tell the difference. The claim 'that them English think its all about them' is a racial slur generated against English people and not a habit of the English people.
Racism is bad, however anti-English racism is getting more widespread in Scotland and these racist myths are not being challenged. The SNP is smoothly led but has an undercurrent that is essentially an alt-right movement and only escapes that label by restricting its hatred to the English and not people of a different colour.
Orlanth wrote: : proud to be Welsh while simultaneously believing that the English do not exist as a racial group.
I'm with you on everything apart from this. English is not a racial group. It may be national or cultural, but is deffinitely not racial. Within the English there are regional differences in heritage. More Scandinavian in the north east, Briton in the south west, Saxon in the south, Angle in the midlands.
And that's just the English. The Scots are equally a mish-mash of identities, being predominantly Caledonian, Irish, Norman and Briton. Try telling a Scottish person that there's no such thing as a Scotsman.
Ok. Technically you are correct. However by the same technicality the only ethnic groups are those that practice racial purity, either through geography or ideology.
Sure Amazonian tribes are 'pure' (hate the word but lets run with it for now) racial group. Jews are fairly 'pure' because of Jewish marriage laws, but Jews too are very diverse over time.
English are not 'pure', but then neither is just about anyone else. Japanese are pretty close being an island nation with very little immigration or external contact. Just about every African tribe bar the most isolated and primitive is interbred with its neighbours, Asian peoples even more so and Europeans most of all, due to having technology longest.
However we do have a racial identity, because said identity is partly genetic but also partly geographical and partly cultural.
When the Romans captured the Sabine women they did so to generate more Romans not more Sabine. The difference was cultural the genetics were the same either way.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Curious that you believe that it is a concern with this habit that is a problem, and not the habit itself.
I am more concerned with the myth not the habit. Most English do not confuse Britishness with Englishness, we can tell the difference. The claim 'that them English think its all about them' is a racial slur generated against English people and not a habit of the English people.
Alas, it is a habit of the Anglo- and London-centric British media. That does get extrapolated to represent all English people, which is unfair, but it is a common enough issue that it is understandable, I would suggest.
Racism is bad, however anti-English racism is getting more widespread in Scotland and these racist myths are not being challenged. The SNP is smoothly led but has an undercurrent that is essentially an alt-right movement and only escapes that label by restricting its hatred to the English and not people of a different colour.
This is demonstrably nonsense. It is far easier to point to, for instance, Westminster MPs treating Scotland, Holyrood, and MSPs with derision and contempt than the opposite direction. There are certainly nationalists who express hatred towards England and English people, but they are called out and excluded by the mainstream movement and by all nationalist political parties.
Orlanth wrote: : proud to be Welsh while simultaneously believing that the English do not exist as a racial group.
I'm with you on everything apart from this. English is not a racial group. It may be national or cultural, but is deffinitely not racial. Within the English there are regional differences in heritage. More Scandinavian in the north east, Briton in the south west, Saxon in the south, Angle in the midlands.
And that's just the English. The Scots are equally a mish-mash of identities, being predominantly Caledonian, Irish, Norman and Briton. Try telling a Scottish person that there's no such thing as a Scotsman.
Ok. Technically you are correct. However by the same technicality the only ethnic groups are those that practice racial purity, either through geography or ideology.
Sure Amazonian tribes are 'pure' (hate the word but lets run with it for now) racial group. Jews are fairly 'pure' because of Jewish marriage laws, but Jews too are very diverse over time.
English are not 'pure', but then neither is just about anyone else. Japanese are pretty close being an island nation with very little immigration or external contact. Just about every African tribe bar the most isolated and primitive is interbred with its neighbours, Asian peoples even more so and Europeans most of all, due to having technology longest.
However we do have a racial identity, because said identity is partly genetic but also partly geographical and partly cultural.
When the Romans captured the Sabine women they did so to generate more Romans not more Sabine. The difference was cultural the genetics were the same either way.
Several fundamental problems here: You’re conflating ethnicity and race; I don’t think you know a lot about Jewish marriages; trying to project modern conceptions of race and/or ethnicity into the Roman world is at best a fool’s errand; ‘primitive’ is a severely problematic term when describing humans.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Curious that you believe that it is a concern with this habit that is a problem, and not the habit itself.
I am more concerned with the myth not the habit. Most English do not confuse Britishness with Englishness, we can tell the difference. The claim 'that them English think its all about them' is a racial slur generated against English people and not a habit of the English people.
Alas, it is a habit of the Anglo- and London-centric British media. That does get extrapolated to represent all English people, which is unfair, but it is a common enough issue that it is understandable, I would suggest.
You suggest incorrectly.
First British media not Anglo or London centric. Most national newspapers go as far as to have a Scottish edition, there isn't a separate Welsh edition of most national newspapers due to circulation, however focus is still clearly national.
Second, if it were true it would still not excuse the anti-English rhetoric. Being misled into bigotry doesnt make the bigotry 'understandable', we can understand its root, but shouldn't handwave it away ac in any way acceptable
Racism is bad, however anti-English racism is getting more widespread in Scotland and these racist myths are not being challenged. The SNP is smoothly led but has an undercurrent that is essentially an alt-right movement and only escapes that label by restricting its hatred to the English and not people of a different colour.
It is far easier to point to, for instance, Westminster MPs treating Scotland, Holyrood, and MSPs with derision and contempt than the opposite direction.
Please do so. You will find it is part of the myth.
Scots are so treated with derision in Westminster? Really. Ok Westminster treats everyone with derision inside the parliament chamber, its a parliament, this is to be expected, and Scottish parliamentariains are treated no different. We can prove this because we had a Scottish Prime Minister recently, were we a bunch of anti-Scottish bigots we would not have put a Scot in charge. It was Gordon Brown and he didn't last long, but his being a Scot was not part of the reason he was unpopular. were the contempt real were the racism real that would have surfaced in a big way.
Parliamentary games are no different the world over, and are no different in Holyrood, Cardiff or Stormont, except Stormont was considerably worse, but that is a separate issue.
However projecting that as a contempt for Scotland is blatant scaremongering.
Projecting that as a contempt for Holyrood or the MSP's is a different type of scaremongering. The SNP leadership will of course make claim that anything other than giving in to every one of their demands is an attack on Scottish people or Scotland. It's their rhetoric, it's what they do. Your fault if you lap it up.
There are certainly nationalists who express hatred towards England and English people, but they are called out and excluded by the mainstream movement and by all nationalist political parties.
If only that were true.
- I will partly retract that. Some Scottish nationalist leaders are probably embarrassed by it, others quietly encourage it, and made wide support of 'cyber-nats' while remaining legally unconnected, and some are complete undiscuised Anglophobes, the latter were asked to remain quiet during the referendum for tactical reasons.
Several fundamental problems here: You’re conflating ethnicity and race;
We have to as our geneology is a social concept. To say there is no English race is to say there is no other either for logical consistency to be maintained.
trying to project modern conceptions of race and/or ethnicity into the Roman world is at best a fool’s errand; ‘primitive’ is a severely problematic term when describing humans.
Please stop and think about what you are saying here. Fools errand? Really. Historical distance is not a factor, we are human so were the Romans.
The analogy stands, and is one of many. I mentioned it because it is a classic story of geneology and politics and history mixing. I could have tried some other more recent dry as toast example.
Orlanth wrote: It is interesting that this thread has revealed a lot of pointers to a problem with the social engineering of British identity for party political gain. I will make some comments on what I see here then return later to handle replies and expound more on the subject later.
This is, I think, quite true. English people use the term British quite interchangeable with their own culture of 'Englishness' usually.
This is the main issue, and one that really needs to be confronted.
It only needs to be 'confronted', if you think of the English as the enemy beyond the southern border. If/as you do, that is your problem and not really anyone elses.
Curious that you believe that it is a concern with this habit that is a problem, and not the habit itself.
I am more concerned with the myth not the habit. Most English do not confuse Britishness with Englishness, we can tell the difference. The claim 'that them English think its all about them' is a racial slur generated against English people and not a habit of the English people.
Alas, it is a habit of the Anglo- and London-centric British media. That does get extrapolated to represent all English people, which is unfair, but it is a common enough issue that it is understandable, I would suggest.
You suggest incorrectly.
First British media not Anglo or London centric. Most national newspapers go as far as to have a Scottish edition, there isn't a separate Welsh edition of most national newspapers due to circulation, however focus is still clearly national.
Second, if it were true it would still not excuse the anti-English rhetoric. Being misled into bigotry doesnt make the bigotry 'understandable', we can understand its root, but shouldn't handwave it away ac in any way acceptable
The vast majority of national coverage broadcast or published in Scotland and Wales is devoted to events in England. Now, in many cases this is good, we want coverage of what's going on at Westminster, for instance, as it is relevant to everyone in the UK. What is silly and highlights an Anglo-centric focus, however, is when the bulk of broadcasts in Scotland in the major news hours is dedicated to the London Mayoral race, or a tube strike, or the Northern Rail fiasco. These are things that are important and should be dealt with, but they shouldn't dominate the 6 or 10 o'clock news in Aberdeen or Aberystwyth. Probably the most clear Anglo-centric media bias is in sports commentary, punditry, and reporting, where it is so relentless that people don't even complain: it's simply funny. People make bingo cards for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland football games when they're in the same competitions as England. You've usually hit 1966, England's expected progression, a mention of nearly every England squad member etc by half time. English sports commentators focussing on England when commentating on games England are not part of isn't a major social disaster, obviously, but it does speak to a general undercurrent of England's centrality amongst the home nations.
You are entirely right that it doesn't excuse anti-English rhetoric directed at the general populace, but then I stated that flatly above.
Racism is bad, however anti-English racism is getting more widespread in Scotland and these racist myths are not being challenged. The SNP is smoothly led but has an undercurrent that is essentially an alt-right movement and only escapes that label by restricting its hatred to the English and not people of a different colour.
I don't think discarding the Union Flag is anti-English. I think it's anti-Westminster, which you may well see as a problem, and I'm not necessarily in disagreement, but it's a distinct issue. That you do think the removal of the UK flag is anti-English perhaps suggests you are equating the UK with England, the very problem you claim is mythical.
Bad example. Well, for your point. It's an excellent example of the British media misrepresenting Scottish society to attack the independence movement. Two problems for the point you wish to make:
Firstly. The numbers do not state that racist incidents against English people in Scotland are up. They state that all racist incidents are up, including against white British people. That all reports of racism are up suggests that attitudes towards tolerating racism have changed and that Police attention and vigilance have changed, not simply that Scotland has started hating everyone more.
Secondly. Not all white British people are English. The majority of racist incidents in Scotland are directed against Catholics*, the vast majority of whom are white British. A trend that is on an upswing, sadly. There is an excellent book dealing with racism in Scotland that is well worth a read, which does an excellent job of addressing both the habit that many Scots have of thinking we're immune to racism as a problem, and of dealing with the groups that tend to be targeted, and by whom. Davidson et al. 2018. No Problem Here: Understanding Racism In Scotland. Edinburgh: Luath.
*For what it's worth, I don't think these are racist, but rather ethno-religious hate crimes, but it fits with the conception of race you are using and we'll come back to the fluidity of these concepts below!
It is far easier to point to, for instance, Westminster MPs treating Scotland, Holyrood, and MSPs with derision and contempt than the opposite direction.
Please do so. You will find it is part of the myth.
Scots are so treated with derision in Westminster? Really. Ok Westminster treats everyone with derision inside the parliament chamber, its a parliament, this is to be expected, and Scottish parliamentariains are treated no different. We can prove this because we had a Scottish Prime Minister recently, were we a bunch of anti-Scottish bigots we would not have put a Scot in charge. It was Gordon Brown and he didn't last long, but his being a Scot was not part of the reason he was unpopular. were the contempt real were the racism real that would have surfaced in a big way.
Parliamentary games are no different the world over, and are no different in Holyrood, Cardiff or Stormont, except Stormont was considerably worse, but that is a separate issue.
However projecting that as a contempt for Scotland is blatant scaremongering.
Projecting that as a contempt for Holyrood or the MSP's is a different type of scaremongering. The SNP leadership will of course make claim that anything other than giving in to every one of their demands is an attack on Scottish people or Scotland. It's their rhetoric, it's what they do. Your fault if you lap it up.
How about when Kelvin MacKenzie wrote an entire Sun column about how stupid Scots were, and chortling that at least we were dying faster than the rest of the UK, and made gags about rebuilding Hadrian's wall 'another hundred foot higher and start airlifting in Red Cross parcels of Mars bars' and then Nigel Griffiths, Deputy Leader of the House, when asked about it by a Scottish MP jumping headlong into whataboutery?
There are certainly nationalists who express hatred towards England and English people, but they are called out and excluded by the mainstream movement and by all nationalist political parties.
If only that were true.
- I will partly retract that. Some Scottish nationalist leaders are probably embarrassed by it, others quietly encourage it, and made wide support of 'cyber-nats' while remaining legally unconnected, and some are complete undiscuised Anglophobes, the latter were asked to remain quiet during the referendum for tactical reasons.
A Scottish MP is accused of not taking the side of three Scottish soldiers who died serving the UK. What point are you making about English hatred? Are you saying they were English soldiers? Or that they were serving England? Are you conflating England and the UK, like you claim no one does?
Several fundamental problems here: You’re conflating ethnicity and race;
We have to as our geneology is a social concept. To say there is no English race is to say there is no other either for logical consistency to be maintained.
They mean distinctly different things. One (almost certainly inaccurately) defines human groups on the basis of perceived biological commonalities whilst the other is an explicitly social construct.
This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
trying to project modern conceptions of race and/or ethnicity into the Roman world is at best a fool’s errand; ‘primitive’ is a severely problematic term when describing humans.
Please stop and think about what you are saying here.
I promise I am. I'm an archaeologist who works on Iron Age Israel and Middle Bronze Anatolia, periods where ethnic definitions are major issues that are taken extremely seriously because of their potential to be exploited in the modern day.
Fools errand? Really. Historical distance is not a factor, we are human so were the Romans.
Historical distance is a massive factor. Ethnicity is unquestionably socially constructed and perceptions of racial markers are understood differently in different cultural contexts. Unsurprisingly, socially constructed things are constructed differently by different societies. They're understood very differently once you start introducing substantial time-depth. This is not controversial. This is mainstream, firmly established in the anthropological, sociological, and ethnographic literature. I am happy to give you a list of key texts if you want to see the groundwork in it.
nfe wrote: This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Do you know any Jews? In real life? What are you basing this on? Do you have any evidence to back it up?
Every jew I've ever know, which has been a fair number, has married only other people from the same community. Many have been quite literally forced to do so (women told by their father they'd be disowned by the family if they stayed with someone who wasn't Jewish, for example).
Also how have you got the time to write these essay length troll posts?
Either way, your response is irrelevant. The last few pages have been completely off topic, the English, believe it or not, are not defined by their relationship with the Scottish.
nfe wrote: This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Do you know any Jews? In real life?
I work in Israel.
Also how have you got the time to write these essay length troll posts?
PhD life, innit. I keep funny hours and am well-practiced at reading and writing arguments fast. There has been no trolling.
Either way, your response is irrelevant. The last few pages have been completely off topic, the English, believe it or not, are not defined by their relationship with the Scottish.
I have at no point argued that they are. I've discussed two issues that pertain directly to 'what it is to be English': the degree to which English pride overlaps with racism, and the degree to which English people conflate English and British identities. You and Orlanth brought up Scotland and Wales. I responded to your comparisons.
Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
Xenomancers wrote: Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
As a general rule, witch is far more acceptable in Scotland and Northern Ireland than it is England and Wales, but I don't think many people would think it less offensive than melon-fether even in contexts where it is used freely.
Xenomancers wrote: Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
As a general rule, witch is far more acceptable in Scotland and Northern Ireland than it is England and Wales, but I don't think many people would think it less offensive than melon-fether even in contexts where it is used freely.
Humm - perhaps my friend was FOS then. We were drinking scotch though. So figures how we were having such a silly discussion anyways.
Xenomancers wrote: Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
To be honest, it's just that 'mother gaker' isn't really used that much here; it's more cumbersome to say than 'cant' or one of our many other insults.
swearwords here are basically punctuation. "The fething fether's fething fethed" is a fine exemplar of a sentence, using "feth" as pretty much every part of speech in one sentence.
How similar are Israeli-Jews and English- (or British-) Jews, with regards to multi-culturalism? I hardly know any Jews (or know that I know are Jewish), so am curious.
When I'm asked about Englishness, I always stray towards the stereotypical Bowler hat, brolly and newspaper image.
Thinking a bit harder, it is the grasping at perceived heritage, and long and varied history. Being able to tie ourselves into almost every other country, there is a lot to talk about. Lots of it is bad though, and we have a fair amount to learn from.
We have been conquered so often, and our original identity has been smeared about so much, hanging onto semi-historical histories like Robin Hood and King Arthur goes a long way. Morris Dancing, Welly Wanging and such probably only happened for the Victorians, but we'll stick them in with what we think we know about Stonehenge, Vikings, and the Romans. English Pride is a funny thing.
We'll take any four-letter word and throw it all over the place, though.
Skinnereal wrote: How similar are Israeli-Jews and English- (or British-) Jews, with regards to multi-culturalism? I hardly know any Jews (or know that I know are Jewish), so am curious.
I don't know many British Jews to be honest. 6 or 7 probably. None of them are married to Jews, though. I know a lot of Israeli Jews, and most that are married are married to other Jews, but of course the majority of their population is Jewish. Still, I know a considerable number that are married to non-Jewish Israelis, and, for some reason, lots of German Christians. I am happy to concede that very few of my Israeli friends are particularly religious, and none are Haredi (though a few used to be) so my experience is of a subset of the Jewish Israeli community, albeit a pretty big one (something like 65% of Israeli Jews are secular).
To pull that back to the topic, I'm always curious about how ethnic minorities define their national identity - not simply how they identify themselves, but how their understand it. Englishness will be defined in a variety of ways even within a narrow demographic, but there are presumably patterns within distinct communities. Dianne Abbot, David Miliband, Chuka Amunna and Sadiq Khan all probably understand what it is to be English in different ways, for instance.
nfe wrote: This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Do you know any Jews? In real life?
I work in Israel.
Also how have you got the time to write these essay length troll posts?
PhD life, innit. I keep funny hours and am well-practiced at reading and writing arguments fast. There has been no trolling.
Either way, your response is irrelevant. The last few pages have been completely off topic, the English, believe it or not, are not defined by their relationship with the Scottish.
I have at no point argued that they are. I've discussed two issues that pertain directly to 'what it is to be English': the degree to which English pride overlaps with racism, and the degree to which English people conflate English and British identities. You and Orlanth brought up Scotland and Wales. I responded to your comparisons.
You live in Israel then? So you have little direct contact with Jewish groups in other countries where they are the minority and may act entirely different?
Perhaps you should slow down and read the arguments a little more closely before you respond, you've made a number of assumptions of my posts that were wrong. Congrats on the PhD though!
Your first post to me was to claim that the media have no agenda in terms of pushing English pride = racism. Your argument was that the most popular newspapers (in terms of readership) argue the same position I share which may be true but ignores a massive swathe of what I'd consider to be "the media". Why did you do this? To assert that the "loudest people" in terms of English pride are also idiotic racists. You've yet to prove this by the way. A twitter bio stating "I'm proud to be English" for a particular person is not really evidence.
This is the exact issue we are discussing. You're cultivating the bs argument that those who are proud to be English are racist bigots.
you wrote:‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
It depends how you define "screaming" about it I suppose. Would you consider someone who flew their Nation's flag outside their home to be "screaming"? How about those who have a tattoo of their flag, or a registration plate for their car that states their nationality?
AndrewGPaul wrote: swearwords here are basically punctuation. "The fething fether's fething fethed" is a fine exemplar of a sentence, using "feth" as pretty much every part of speech in one sentence.
Come along now, it's not quite Australia here. yet...
I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
In my area for example the C-Bomb is considered the worst word bar none and generally swearwords are considered very poor taste.
Whereas in the wastelands of Essex I find that many people feel a sentence isn’t complete without a c*** in there somewhere
To me, to be English is to be a stubborn, sarcastic, self-loathing bastard who holds a grudge for a lifetime and is loyal to a fault. We hate complainers almost as much as the French and will tough out a situation ourselves rather than ask for help. We like our rivalries, be they international or domestic, but will be your bff if you buy us a drink. That won’t stop us calling you a c*** though
nfe wrote: This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Do you know any Jews? In real life?
I work in Israel.
Also how have you got the time to write these essay length troll posts?
PhD life, innit. I keep funny hours and am well-practiced at reading and writing arguments fast. There has been no trolling.
Either way, your response is irrelevant. The last few pages have been completely off topic, the English, believe it or not, are not defined by their relationship with the Scottish.
I have at no point argued that they are. I've discussed two issues that pertain directly to 'what it is to be English': the degree to which English pride overlaps with racism, and the degree to which English people conflate English and British identities. You and Orlanth brought up Scotland and Wales. I responded to your comparisons.
You live in Israel then? So you have little direct contact with Jewish groups in other countries where they are the minority and may act entirely different?
I live in Glasgow. I spend the bulk of the summer in Israel. I don't have a great deal of interaction with British Jews, though I do have a great many Jewish colleagues from other nations: mostly North Americans.
Perhaps you should slow down and read the arguments a little more closely before you respond, you've made a number of assumptions of my posts that were wrong. Congrats on the PhD though!
Thanks, but I don't believe the first sentence to be true.
Your first post to me was to claim that the media have no agenda in terms of pushing English pride = racism. Your argument was that the most popular newspapers (in terms of readership) argue the same position I share which may be true but ignores a massive swathe of what I'd consider to be "the media".
I didn't claim the media has no agenda to do this, I said the majority of it does not. I'm not going to argue that The Guardian doesn't frequently equate English Pride and racism, only that the bulk of print media does not.
Why did you do this? To assert that the "loudest people" in terms of English pride are also idiotic racists. You've yet to prove this by the way.
I didn't argue this either. I said that there is likely to be more crossover between people who make a particular point of being proud of being English and people who are racist than those who are less forthright about it.
A twitter bio stating "I'm proud to be English" for a particular person is not really evidence.
Evidence of what? I only gave it as an example of the kind of thing that might be thought of as 'loud' in terms of national pride.
This is the exact issue we are discussing. You're cultivating the bs argument that those who are proud to be English are racist bigots.[.quote]
Again, no. I am not making that case. I'm saying that all things being equal, people who wish to make a particular, frequent point of telling people about their English pride are more likely to also be racist than people who may well be proud of being English but are less inclined to talk about that pride often.
you wrote:‘The loudest people’ is very nuch the case. Because normal people who are proud of where they come from don’t spend half their life screaming about it.
It depends how you define "screaming" about it I suppose. Would you consider someone who flew their Nation's flag outside their home to be "screaming"? How about those who have a tattoo of their flag, or a registration plate for their car that states their nationality?
Of course it depends on your definition. I wouldn't consider any of those things screaming about their national pride as such. I'd probably roll my eyes at someone doing all three. Irrespective of the nation in question. If they did all three and also made a point of starting any conversation about politics with 'Listen, I'm proud of [nationality]' then I think we're getting towards shouting. I wouldn't assume they were a bigot, on that basis but, if you took every English person who did all of those things, and every other English person, I'd wager you would find more instances of racism amongst the first group.
Could you stop insisting I'm saying that all people who are proud of the Englishness are racists, now?
Snake Tortoise wrote: I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
Oh trust me that is going on here too. Nationalism is considered bad now. I always respected the English for having a strong sense of national pride. I'd hate to see that go.
Snake Tortoise wrote: I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
Oh trust me that is going on here too. Nationalism is considered bad now. I always respected the English for having a strong sense of national pride. I'd hate to see that go.
I thought we were much further down that road than you. National pride is a dirty concept here
The vast majority of national coverage broadcast or published in Scotland and Wales is devoted to events in England. Now, in many cases this is good, we want coverage of what's going on at Westminster, for instance, as it is relevant to everyone in the UK. What is silly and highlights an Anglo-centric focus, however, is when the bulk of broadcasts in Scotland in the major news hours is dedicated to the London Mayoral race, or a tube strike, or the Northern Rail fiasco. These are things that are important and should be dealt with, but they shouldn't dominate the 6 or 10 o'clock news in Aberdeen or Aberystwyth.
In this you are incorrect, it is national news.
First the fact that the Westminster parliament is a time focus for current affairs, this is only logical, and isn't a London bias as much as national news. The national parliament has to be somewhere. Events in Westminster effect everyone, and the issue at focus could be anywhere. Focus on a national parliament is quite normal for anywhere, and as the UK is relatively small unlike Russia or the US it is hardly a case of some distant unreachable body. Its a natural side effect of the Union, and more recently of its reaffirmation.
Second, if you see a lot of English focused news it is entirely due to stochastic influences. If something big happens in the UK it can happen anywhere to anyone, more or less evenly, so about 80% of random events around individuals and about 60% by geography will involve England due to tnumbers. If a Scottish bank collapses, or a Scottish public service franchise feths up, or there is a celebrity event in Scotland that attracts the media attention it gets the same coverage as a similar event in England.
Probably the most clear Anglo-centric media bias is in sports commentary, punditry, and reporting, where it is so relentless that people don't even complain: it's simply funny. People make bingo cards for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland football games when they're in the same competitions as England. You've usually hit 1966, England's expected progression, a mention of nearly every England squad member etc by half time. English sports commentators focusing on England when commentating on games England are not part of isn't a major social disaster, obviously, but it does speak to a general undercurrent of England's centrality amongst the home nations.
You see that because you are looking for it, I see the same news and saw Scotland this, Scotland that. So I took a step back. Frankly I think the coverage is pretty damn fair. However when it comes to big sports we still mostly compete as Team GB, in sports where we do compete as separate nations such as the Commonwealth Games and Six Nations. In both of these media coverage is very fair.
However the main issue here is that Scotland doesn't as often qualify for World Cup, I cant remember the last time Wales has, and while England and 1966 and all that has a lot of focus, it is because it happened and the team has been notably lacking since for one reason one other.
English league football at the top end is also a category of its own, has many teams noted amongst the top league football teams internationally and attracts big money and big name players. Other European nations , especially Spain and Italy also has ts big name teams, but it doesn't have the same draw as the English premiership. While Scotland has some premium football teams also Rangers vs Celtic can and does get nastier than most derbys, the Scottish divisions are comperatively small, and while Scottish football teams can hold their own as premium international league football, there aren't enough for the big draw, and arguably lacks the pull of the main English teams, many of which have an international following. When I see reference to giants like Manchester United this or Tottenham Hotspur that I don't see it as English sport, for it isn't except by geography and a handful of token players.
I don't think discarding the Union Flag is anti-English. I think it's anti-Westminster, which you may well see as a problem, and I'm not necessarily in disagreement, but it's a distinct issue. That you do think the removal of the UK flag is anti-English perhaps suggests you are equating the UK with England, the very problem you claim is mythical.
Well lets look at this logically. If the flag remioval of a national flag is an act against what the flag represents. It is unlikely that the Scottish government are doing so out of objection to Scotland, so what part of the UK are they objecting to?
The flag represents the nation not Westminster. There is a logical disconnect to equate one with the other, this is not a colonial situation.
Bad example. Well, for your point. It's an excellent example of the British media misrepresenting Scottish society to attack the independence movement. Two problems for the point you wish to make:
It was an easy find and indicative of a larger whole. The article claimed that race attacks against the English were increasing, there will always be bigots and race violence it is the intensity that was concerning.
Firstly. The numbers do not state that racist incidents against English people in Scotland are up. They state that all racist incidents are up, including against white British people. That all reports of racism are up suggests that attitudes towards tolerating racism have changed and that Police attention and vigilance have changed, not simply that Scotland has started hating everyone more.
You can read what you want into race hate statistics, and they are very often skewed for political ends, however the phenomenon normally involves whitewashing away unwanted race hate statistics rather than making them up. I could accept your point of view that some Scots might have been uncomfortable in England curing the referendum and afterward, but that experience doesn't play out in any numbers.
Race hate against the English however is very strongly evident, I know many English living in Scotland, my sister for one and a close friend who lived in Paisley, amongst others, and the racism is very apparent and comes from the same subset of hardcore nationalists. On the other hand all of them found, as did I, that as a general rule Scottish people were nicer to meet, and far more genuine than what we are used to in South East England, its why they moved there. My friend in Paisley moved back to England after had developed MS, mostly because Renfrewshire council proved to be repeatedly discriminatory against him. Try getting benefits in the wrong part of Scotland with an English accent is not easy, everything goes missing or gets reassessed, or delayed, month on end, and then reassessed again with unexplained delays; and this was well prior to George Osbornes reforms/attacks on the benefit system, and yes the service was atypical of the region (he asked about) and had no firm basis such as missing documentation.
*For what it's worth, I don't think these are racist, but rather ethno-religious hate crimes, but it fits with the conception of race you are using and we'll come back to the fluidity of these concepts below!
Ok. I use race as a term loosely on this thread, the thread is about race (nationalities) not race (colour).
I presume you'll be familiar with the term 'Scottish mafia' that has been thrown around by MPs to describe the perceived excessive number of Scots (such as Blair, Brown, and Campbell) in and around government?
I wouldn't read too much in to that, were Blair, Brown and Campbell all from Yorkshire it would be the Yorkshire Mafia. I do not find that any of the three were notably biased towards Scotland in their policy making. Furthermore if there was discrimination why put them in charge. Campbell was purte appointee so we can exclude him, but Brown and Blair both had to go through parliamentary selection, then go to the people as a PPP and Blair had an English electorate who did not discriminate against Blairs part-Scottish ancestry at the ballot box.
Also for the commentary the idea that Scottish parliamentarians are overrepresented as a portion of the whole was the issue, and there is room for fair comment to be made on Scottish MP's voting down provision to English people while proposing the same for Scottish people. Allowing only English MP's to vote on issues that do not effect Scotland and wales and are fully devolved is a contentious topic, but has a logic to it that cannot be handwaved away as discrimination, not that that hasnt been tried.
How about when Kelvin MacKenzie wrote an entire Sun column about how stupid Scots were, and chortling that at least we were dying faster than the rest of the UK, and made gags about rebuilding Hadrian's wall 'another hundred foot higher and start airlifting in Red Cross parcels of Mars bars' and then Nigel Griffiths, Deputy Leader of the House, when asked about it by a Scottish MP jumping headlong into whataboutery?
We are going to see occasional trash talk in the media, and its the Sun at least it was an opinion piece and not a formal editorial. I see much the same in Scottish press from time to time.
A Scottish MP is accused of not taking the side of three Scottish soldiers who died serving the UK. What point are you making about English hatred? Are you saying they were English soldiers? Or that they were serving England? Are you conflating England and the UK, like you claim no one does?
And, err, again? They're standing in front of a flag representing a group that has a dispute with the UK, not England.
I was expecting this reply, so I just posted the links and waited..... This form of Scots nationalist will publically espouse the Troubles as a specifically English problem, rather than a British one, and thus try and absolve Scotland. Accuracy is not a relevant issue to them, anglophobia is. It is how they manage the disconnect between being a mainland UKMP while being openly in support of the IRA. It has been largely managed by pointing out that Scottish soldiers died in The Troubles also, however that begs the question as to why that needs to be specifically raised as a reply to get them to stop.
While the Troubles was a UK problem not specifically an English one, this particular mentality is all about an a-historical disconnect between Scotland and England to fuel one hate agenda by linking it to another.
Yes, these scum are admittedly extreme examples but the SNP has scrapped the bigot barrel for a number of people who have ended up with public positions.
Several fundamental problems here: You’re conflating ethnicity and race;
We have to as our geneology is a social concept. To say there is no English race is to say there is no other either for logical consistency to be maintained.
They mean distinctly different things. One (almost certainly inaccurately) defines human groups on the basis of perceived biological commonalities whilst the other is an explicitly social construct.
Ok, going to stop you here as this is getting close to a reduction ad absurdem fallacy. So lets cut to the chase, when you get to the root of human culture there is only ONE RACE, because all peoples are ultimately connected, essentially when we are through arguing who is part of what race you will find that there is a bit of African in all of us. All separate definitions of race when relating to categorising one human being as different to another is arbitrary to some extent or other. Race is what it means in the context. Race can mean colour of skin, it can mean nationaility by what passport you hold, nationality by geneology nationality by cultural group, by self identification, so on and so forth.
So the bottom line is that we can talk about race in terms of black/white, or Scottish/English with some logical application to the term. The only rule if you could all it a rule is that there has to be some common denominator, you couldnt try a pedentic approach and 'break' the open definition of race by saying that your 'race' identity is based on the tower block or street or village you live in. If it was an isolated village in the Amazon or Borneo that could be taken at face value, because of isolated genepool and cultural group, primitive tribal villages are sovereign microstates. To a lesser extent maybe for a remote islander, but not for a connected society not so. So you cant really break the system of race, as it requires a consensus for people to adhere to.
So to conclude, it is entirely fair and logical to make the claim that British Scottish English or Welsh, or European, amongst others as your race identity, alongside in separation to each other or your colour of skin or other ancestry. One can put these in an order, a lot of people think of themselves as say British first and the member nation second, or the other way around. It is all a matter of personal identity. For the record I consider myself British and English, and I could not choose one over the other any more than I could favour one of my legs over the other, yet I recognise they are different.
Also legally were one to actively discriminate against say, the Welsh, that would by a fair application of the term 'racist'. If its racist to discriminate, then the subject can be customarily summed up as 'race'.
This link makes a point of the genetic diversity of Jewry right at the top. In any case, marrying outside the Jewish community is relatively common. Marrying outside the Jewish sub-community is very common.
Sure, the point has to be reiterated to prevent trolls from claiming the genetics are a result of 'inbreeding'. Also a religion as long lasting and and as geographically diverse as Judaism will have some interbreeding and leakage. However it is interesting to note that despite the very long time and distance gaps involved there are common features to the genepool of Jewish people. I will go as far as to say it is impressive how the geneology wasn't diluted out.
We know why and Jewish religious law and custom with regards to marriage and identity is the key.
trying to project modern conceptions of race and/or ethnicity into the Roman world is at best a fool’s errand; ‘primitive’ is a severely problematic term when describing humans.
Please stop and think about what you are saying here.
I promise I am. I'm an archaeologist who works on Iron Age Israel and Middle Bronze Anatolia, periods where ethnic definitions are major issues that are taken extremely seriously because of their potential to be exploited in the modern day.
Fools errand? Really. Historical distance is not a factor, we are human so were the Romans.
Historical distance is a massive factor. Ethnicity is unquestionably socially constructed and perceptions of racial markers are understood differently in different cultural contexts. Unsurprisingly, socially constructed things are constructed differently by different societies. They're understood very differently once you start introducing substantial time-depth. This is not controversial. This is mainstream, firmly established in the anthropological, sociological, and ethnographic literature. I am happy to give you a list of key texts if you want to see the groundwork in it.
Gotcha. You are disregarding the event of the Sabine women because you don't want to to be relevant. I can see the cause of your fears, historical evidence in the middle east effects its politics today. However this doesn't disavow the principle I mentioned. The Sabine women as an example as to how an intermarriage has roots on the race definition of the offspring, a topical example with controversy arising from the time not a continuous modern geneology example with current political overtones. Children born to captured Sabine women were Roman children not Sabine children, though they had Sabine ancestry. This had consequences when the Sabine women raised the grandchildren of the Sabine warriors marching to avenge their despoilation. The whole story validates the concept that race is defined culturally, and has been for a very long time.
There are similar Biblical examples. "an Egyptian born amongst you is to be treated as if he were a Jew" . Paraphrased, can't remember the verse accurately enough to google it successfully, one of the laws of Moses.
Spoiler:
An aside: Biblical era archeology is a hot topic. Iit is a mistake to look at the religious history as purely a catalyst for modern political problems. It is equally part of the solution. God claimed in the book of Judges that due to Israel's sin the Philistines would never be fully conquered. Hardline Jews want a greater Israel as promised, and I can see direct parallels between the take the land piece by piece commandment in the book of Joshua with current Israeli military-political policy. However the same hardline Jews who believe in a greater Israel as promised by God, should also accept the same God said that the remaining Canaanite cities would never be truly conquered (Judges 2:20 - 3:4). These territories are classified as ancient Philistia, modern day Gaza strip.
I can think of several Koranic verses which warns against attacking Jews, most notably 'Allah favours the Jews, and 'those who plot against the Jews plot against God, and Allah is the chief of plotters'.
It is a travesty because there is a lot of biblical research going on, findings are taken by hotheads as a catalyst for further rounds of recriminations, and could just as easily be taken the other way.
Xenomancers wrote: Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
Yep 'motherf***k*r' is a pretty strong insult. The C-word when applied to a person normally invokes malicious/uncaring self-centeredness/selfishness. The male equivalent is a generic insult. Though being called a 'knob' which is th same as the P-word in some respects is more semi-friendly.
If someone is 'being a knob' they are acting foolishly, if they are 'being a pr**k' it is the same but more malicious/mischievous.
The word to watch out for is fanny. To Americans it means the bottom or arse/ass and is a very tame and casual word.
A friend who works in software development went with his newly weded wife to work in the Us for a couple of years. The company set them up with an apartment etc, one day while furnishing the bed and overenthusiastixc bed salesman asked the couple to try out the beds to see how comfortable they were. One particular prized matress on offer was a contouring softform foam popular at the time, the salesmans words to the wife were "try it, have a lie down, your fanny will soon put a dent in that."
Where I am from in Ireland, the c word (not trying to get around the filter) is no more serious than any other swearword and does not have the heavily gendered associations it carries in the US. I have had to tone down my language generally, but particularly avoid that word as people get super offended. Tempted to accuse them of cultural imperialism, but I like a quiet life.
I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
Snake Tortoise wrote: I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
Oh trust me that is going on here too. Nationalism is considered bad now. I always respected the English for having a strong sense of national pride. I'd hate to see that go.
I thought we were much further down that road than you. National pride is a dirty concept here
Snake Tortoise. You are safe. Yes SJW's are rising, people are pulling down historical monuments for the wrong reasons. However the US is safe. You fly your flag, don't let anyone touch it and are immune to the hype to some degree. USA still wallows in its own form of bullcrap but everyone expects that and is used to it, and it will be very hard to force the form of revisionism that tries to make English people live in shame.
Part of the revisionism you are getting is because of the seminal groundwork of modern political spin formulated by and pioneered by the New Labour era. It is a widely copied model of social control. I have watched it for over twenty years, accurately predicting at the time the causes and consequences, many of them put to paper before they occurred in the nation state. The new system has worked so well most people were and still are unaware that we actually had what amounts to a silent revolution in the UK after 1997. The patterns of control used in the UK are now strongly in evidence in a lot of Europe Germany and Sweden in particular. And as with the UK there will be a large surge of public denial.
The rot is depressing and it has hit the UK and England in particular hard, and it was for party political benefit. We are starting to come out the other side as a culture, but sadly the political elite are still heavily entrenched in Blairism, even though Blair himself has long been put into the political dustbin. Equally damaging is that the youth of today are heavily dogmatised, and have been divorced from any form of national cultural upbringing, unless they were Scottish or Welsh. New Labour hoped that selective disempowerment would keep them in power, as Scotland and Wales are Labour heartland right? However when you remove British collective cultural identity, and also marginalise English cultural identity while heavily and selectively promoting ethnic identities, and Scottish and Welsh were considered ethnic from a point of view of power division, you actually ended up with a massive upsurge of Scottish and Welsh nationalism. Division was not a problem, New Labour expected division from the outset, multi-culturalism is and never was never expected to work, contrary to rhetoric, it is supposed to left to its own devices and thus fail However in this New Labour as the self proclaimed champions of multi culturalism becomes the indispensible glue that binds the nation together, through this perpetual power was envisabed as a goal. This ultimate goal didn't work, but came pretty close. Were it not for Blairs game of soldiers in Iraq which had a different dynamic to that expected, New Labour might still be in power today. Blair expected to still be in power in 2012, and his predictions were not unrealistic, he bought the Olympics to showcase New Labour, and Gibraltar was to be betrayed around that time. His failures were outside and beyond the repair by his successes in social engineering.
Allowing the far right to grow is also to plan and was predicted for in the initial study, they become a collective label for anyone who disagrees with New Britain. If you are opposed to New Labour/multi-culturalism/selective empowerment etc you must be hate-filled far right, with emphasis on both. You have the counter movement and the beat stick rolled into one, and you don't even need to the police to police it.
New Labour started the modern no-platform movement (they got that from African politics, but introduced it as a viable policy in western society).
You want to know how a modern democratic enlightened society can have no-platforming by SJW's in a university, the very heart of free thought where discourse without intimidation has long been sacrosanct. Blame New Labour, they made the doctrines work.
While I despise New Labour I have a deep respect for their ability to work social engineering, others respect their achievements too, because they are busy copying the model.
However from America you can be sure to weather the storm, I know this because I also know that New Labour did not originate their own movement. It started in the US under the Clinton administration. However Clinton himself was not behind it, so it lacked the central leadership that New Labour had, and in terms of relative internal power the UK Prime Minister is much stronger than the US President, and the UK cabinet much stronger than the White House administration. We do have the ultimate safeguard that any action has to pass the monarch, Blair's solution to that was to flatly refuse to report to the Queen and isolate her. He would have made a republic if he could, but Her Majesty's popularity far exceeds his own even at the height of his power.
Political correctness as a power form failed in the US because of the nature of US society, in the US you can say what you want under the flag, and while there are limits for public decency it is hard to enforce those limits early on someone who just wants to speak their mind.
It did well in the UK where it became the central beatstick to use to party politicise the civil service, and shut down any effective opposition. Some icons were left alone because good propaganda always leaves a isolatable vent, that is one of Orwell's lessons, and are sourced int turn from the Soviet Unions policy of 'dialectic'.
Back in the New Labour years there was a repeated term which was oft used but rarely understood, and now not really used anymore 'political correctness gone mad', and while some of the stories are what would now be called fake news, others were not. Grognard's of this system often with a worms eye view of political life started gravitating to pressure groups. One of those was the EDL. The EDL was not actually founded as a hate group, but as an anti-political correctness pressure group. They went out of their way to try and recruit blacks and made statements supporting Israel, mostly on the hope that anyone who is vocally pro-Israeli cannot easily be tarnished as a Nazi, they also went out of their way to disavow racism, and ask instead for genuine equality without 'positive discrimination'. It did not work, few blacks found the EDL, though black underclass have mostly the same questions and complaints as the white underclass, but skinheads and far right hatemongers rushed to it, they may have been bussed in, no way to tell for sure, and after one or two press stories they were the next BNP (the current at the time far right movement). EDL then went off the deep end and became an object lesson on social engineering as and of itself.
In the post New Labour years Cameron tried so limit the damage, however some of the control structures are rooted into Westminster politics, and found to be too useful to remove, they are also adopted with little change in the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary politics. May, being a pure opportunist has in turn reversed back some of the damage control Cameron government performed. In this era we see the second wave movement hit the US. As with political culture as it reaches the US it grows its own dynamic and its own jargon.
SJW and 'triggered' both come from the US adoption of the social engineering model from Europe. It is effective and is damaging, but ultimately it will fail. The US is too big to dogmatise, and Americans are flag flying to a fault, but this will actually help them here. I pity the man to try and maneuver American politics to make Americans feel shamed to be American. It could work, as in its a realistic threat, and has been tried, but ultimately it will fail utterly, I don't think I need to explain why.
It’s moving to live in another country and refusing to learn the language,refusing to eat the foreign food and drinking Guinness in a bar and finally flying a Union Jack in your garden so I’m told by my English mates. I’m Welsh so I have my own problems.
Galas wrote: Well... until this thread I didn't even know english and british weren't the same thing.
EDIT: And as formosa said, galician, catalan and vasque "nationalism" is in general seen as a good thing, but "spanish" nationalism is normally the umbrella for fascist and post-franquists, and many people believes they have basically kidnaped (Myself included) the "spanish" identity for their own political agenda, for the detriment of all of the country. Is actually funny how similar the situations are.
Of course, the catalonian crisis hasn't helped with this.
Ha, you tell me. I've been called out a "nazi" for wearing a spanish flag. A country is not "what it means to be", but what it is to you. For me, my country is my city, my family (from all around the country), and what not; food is my country. Anyway, in the 41st Millenium there are no countries, JUST THE EMPEROR
Galas wrote: Well... until this thread I didn't even know english and british weren't the same thing.
EDIT: And as formosa said, galician, catalan and vasque "nationalism" is in general seen as a good thing, but "spanish" nationalism is normally the umbrella for fascist and post-franquists, and many people believes they have basically kidnaped (Myself included) the "spanish" identity for their own political agenda, for the detriment of all of the country. Is actually funny how similar the situations are.
Of course, the catalonian crisis hasn't helped with this.
Ha, you tell me. I've been called out a "nazi" for wearing a spanish flag. A country is not "what it means to be", but what it is to you. For me, my country is my city, my family (from all around the country), and what not; food is my country. Anyway, in the 41st Millenium there are no countries, JUST THE EMPEROR
Galas, you do know better regarding Britishness, you were quite vocal on the Scottish independence thread and witnessed the Scottish/English divide as well as Britishness there. In fact I remember your content where you supported claims by myself and other pro Ujnion commentators that if Scotland chose independence the Spanish would likely EU veto membership because the Catalan problem. This was way back in 2014.
I have heard a lot of different individual Spaniards saying that there is a move to apply far right overtones to the Spanish flag. I have not studied how the dogma has effected Spain and I am interested in any recent national social engineering technique changes and broadly when they started to appear.
Zingraff wrote: I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
its a very old 'factoid' most likely based on post-war scarcity and a typically bloody minded resistance to change, and whilst 'English' food hasn't really changed we have embraced a wide range of other places foodstuffs, admittedly tweaked for English preferences, such that I'd wager most of our bigger towns and cities have a wider range of restaurants / takeaways than their EU counterparts, likewise our Supermarkets have fairly extensive choices (Curry, Chinese and Italian being the most popular)
One of those was the EDL. The EDL was not actually founded as a hate group, but as an anti-political correctness pressure group. They went out of their way to try and recruit blacks and made statements supporting Israel, mostly on the hope that anyone who is vocally pro-Israeli cannot easily be tarnished as a Nazi, they also went out of their way to disavow racism, and ask instead for genuine equality without 'positive discrimination'. It did not work, few blacks found the EDL
I’ll make a point of returning to respond to your reply to me. In the meantime I just want to highlight this in case it gets edited away if you spot that the irony of you, as an avowedly proud Englishman, using racist language somewhat undercuts your insistence that the suggestion that English pride and racism may overlap is a contrived smear.
Zingraff wrote: I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
its a very old 'factoid' most likely based on post-war scarcity and a typically bloody minded resistance to change, and whilst 'English' food hasn't really changed we have embraced a wide range of other places foodstuffs, admittedly tweaked for English preferences, such that I'd wager most of our bigger towns and cities have a wider range of restaurants / takeaways than their EU counterparts, likewise our Supermarkets have fairly extensive choices (Curry, Chinese and Italian being the most popular)
Well, traditional English cuisine is still superior to ours, with the exception of scouse, but only because it's exactly the same as the Norwegian labskaus.
In traditional English cooking you get stuff like pies, rich sauces, sausages, marmalades, blue cheeses and excellent ales. We have none of those things.
One of those was the EDL. The EDL was not actually founded as a hate group, but as an anti-political correctness pressure group. They went out of their way to try and recruit blacks and made statements supporting Israel, mostly on the hope that anyone who is vocally pro-Israeli cannot easily be tarnished as a Nazi, they also went out of their way to disavow racism, and ask instead for genuine equality without 'positive discrimination'. It did not work, few blacks found the EDL
I’ll make a point of responding to your reply to me tomorrow. In the meantime I just want to highlight this in case it gets edited away if you spot that the irony of you, as an avowedly proud Englishman, using racist language somewhat undercuts your insistence that the suggestion that English pride and racism may overlap is a contrived smear.
You highlighted the word blacks? Is that your controversy.
Save yourself some effort then. The word 'blacks' is not racist. now some triggered progressives can find just about anything as a racist term, however I am not standing for that bullcrap. Black people refer to themselves as blacks, and not with the same dynamic as the N-word, as in 'we can use it but you cannot'. Black people are identified as black in census forms, it is used in national media, and in politics both of which are more than a little cautious over potentially offensive language. Black is a word used to define people of negroid (scientific term) origin harmlessly just about anywhere.
Now if some idiot tries to tell me that black people now like to be called x or y, I will laugh it off until the black community overwhelming backs it. This is unlikely as the black community are identified under that name for the most part, and I have ever met a black guy who was triggered as being identified as black unless they thought they were something else, as opposed to disliked the term. Furthermore I cant call blacks 'Africans' because many don't come from Africa, or don't identify themselves as African, and Africans can also be non-black.
What we will see are SJW's trying to impose ever changing standards in dialectic, ostensibly to protect minorities but actually as a power play of their own, as well as to root out supposed traitors to civil society who fail to conform to their demands. Yes I can believe that SJW's might try to extend that powertrip by trying to excise commonly used and harmless words like 'black' as a race group on some perceived slight. Frankly I think its a step too far, as it will label too many people at once as the new racists and the bullcrap will lose its power if misused that way. However SJW's are third party utilisers of the social engineering dogma toolkit that is political correctness and too many of them lack the insidious intelligence of those who created the system to begin with. A little bit of overstretch is to be expected, but a self professed scholar like yourself should not be falling for this one.
So.... "black" is now a racist term, ridiculous overstretch!
Well, negro and black are essentially the same word, so I can see why dark-skinned people would find it offensive. It reduces people to nothing more than a colour.
It's interesting how many different viewpoints there are - I suppose it goes to show that "national identity" is a bit of a funny concept, seeing as there are a lot of different people with different ideas about what that identity is.
Although, as one-sentence summaries go, there's always good old "Two world wars and one world cup!"
What I like is that culture and traditions are continually evolving; but some people hold on to them, as if the exact state of cultural being they experienced as a child is a sort of sacrosanct immutable fact of existence that has to be protected against the outsider.
I don't know what it is to be English, but it's not the same thing as it was 30 years ago, and it's certainly not the same thing as it was 60 years ago.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, negro and black are essentially the same word, so I can see why dark-skinned people would find it offensive. It reduces people to nothing more than a colour.
Necro is latin for black, or close enough.
However blacks call themselves blacks, and it thus has a different dynamic to negro due to self identification.
Xenomancers wrote: Since this is a what it is to be English thread I figure this is an okay place to ask.
A friend of mine (a fellow American) told me that Britts take much offense to the phrase "Mother gaker" than they do to the C word which describes female anatomy. It's almost the exact opposite here so it's pretty funny if that is true.
To be honest, it's just that 'mother gaker' isn't really used that much here; it's more cumbersome to say than 'cant' or one of our many other insults.
Really? So British cursing is about quantity over quality? That is interesting.
I don't really give my cursing much thought really. Usually whatever comes out, comes out. Most of them have become a lot like the f bomb to me, interchangeable in almost every aspect of a sentence. This applies double if I have hurt myself or people with poor constitutions are around. Mainly the elderly or religious.
One of those was the EDL. The EDL was not actually founded as a hate group, but as an anti-political correctness pressure group. They went out of their way to try and recruit blacks and made statements supporting Israel, mostly on the hope that anyone who is vocally pro-Israeli cannot easily be tarnished as a Nazi, they also went out of their way to disavow racism, and ask instead for genuine equality without 'positive discrimination'. It did not work, few blacks found the EDL
I’ll make a point of responding to your reply to me tomorrow. In the meantime I just want to highlight this in case it gets edited away if you spot that the irony of you, as an avowedly proud Englishman, using racist language somewhat undercuts your insistence that the suggestion that English pride and racism may overlap is a contrived smear.
You highlighted the word blacks? Is that your controversy.
Save yourself some effort then. The word 'blacks' is not racist. now some triggered progressives can find just about anything as a racist term, however I am not standing for that bullcrap. Black people refer to themselves as blacks, and not with the same dynamic as the N-word, as in 'we can use it but you cannot'. Black people are identified as black in census forms, it is used in national media, and in politics both of which are more than a little cautious over potentially offensive language. Black is a word used to define people of negroid (scientific term) origin harmlessly just about anywhere.
Now if some idiot tries to tell me that black people now like to be called x or y, I will laugh it off until the black community overwhelming backs it. This is unlikely as the black community are identified under that name for the most part, and I have ever met a black guy who was triggered as being identified as black unless they thought they were something else, as opposed to disliked the term. Furthermore I cant call blacks 'Africans' because many don't come from Africa, or don't identify themselves as African, and Africans can also be non-black.
What we will see are SJW's trying to impose ever changing standards in dialectic, ostensibly to protect minorities but actually as a power play of their own, as well as to root out supposed traitors to civil society who fail to conform to their demands. Yes I can believe that SJW's might try to extend that powertrip by trying to excise commonly used and harmless words like 'black' as a race group on some perceived slight. Frankly I think its a step too far, as it will label too many people at once as the new racists and the bullcrap will lose its power if misused that way. However SJW's are third party utilisers of the social engineering dogma toolkit that is political correctness and too many of them lack the insidious intelligence of those who created the system to begin with. A little bit of overstretch is to be expected, but a self professed scholar like yourself should not be falling for this one.
So.... "black" is now a racist term, ridiculous overstretch!
Black is not a racially charged term (at least in the UK). Blacks is. It has connotations of apartheid and racial segregation.
A rant about “SJWs” just comes across poorly. If you can’t articulate why it is an issue without insulting people who disagree with you I would suggest that you probably need to very carefully check your arguments. Especially when you clearly don’t understand what the issue is.
Snake Tortoise wrote: I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
As a Texan its both interesting and strange to watch. I would have thought the discussions would have been about food and domestic social customs, for example the minor topic that popped up about swearing. For instance in the US, when I was growing up (this was back when everyone wore hats with three corners) Yankees were viewed as swearing a lot and being aggressive, where in the South if you did similar you would get your head taken off.
Genetics, racism, colonialism etc etc, well I didn't expect that.
So on the "big island" besides Scotland and Wales, are there other non English locations?
Galas wrote: Well... until this thread I didn't even know english and british weren't the same thing.
EDIT: And as formosa said, galician, catalan and vasque "nationalism" is in general seen as a good thing, but "spanish" nationalism is normally the umbrella for fascist and post-franquists, and many people believes they have basically kidnaped (Myself included) the "spanish" identity for their own political agenda, for the detriment of all of the country. Is actually funny how similar the situations are.
Of course, the catalonian crisis hasn't helped with this.
Ha, you tell me. I've been called out a "nazi" for wearing a spanish flag. A country is not "what it means to be", but what it is to you. For me, my country is my city, my family (from all around the country), and what not; food is my country. Anyway, in the 41st Millenium there are no countries, JUST THE EMPEROR
Wait, what...why? Spain is now a democracy. Can you provide further color?
Now whats interesting is how my Latin American comrades did not like the Spanish- Peruvians and Venezuelans anyway- whereas my Mexican comrades were fine with them (Brazilians obviously were different).
Galas wrote: Well... until this thread I didn't even know english and british weren't the same thing.
EDIT: And as formosa said, galician, catalan and vasque "nationalism" is in general seen as a good thing, but "spanish" nationalism is normally the umbrella for fascist and post-franquists, and many people believes they have basically kidnaped (Myself included) the "spanish" identity for their own political agenda, for the detriment of all of the country. Is actually funny how similar the situations are.
Of course, the catalonian crisis hasn't helped with this.
Ha, you tell me. I've been called out a "nazi" for wearing a spanish flag. A country is not "what it means to be", but what it is to you. For me, my country is my city, my family (from all around the country), and what not; food is my country. Anyway, in the 41st Millenium there are no countries, JUST THE EMPEROR
Wait, what...why? Spain is now a democracy. Can you provide further color?
Now whats interesting is how my Latin American comrades did not like the Spanish- Peruvians and Venezuelans anyway- whereas my Mexican comrades were fine with them (Brazilians obviously were different).
He lives in Barcelona, that should give you a hint.
The issue of the flag is still touchy in Spain because the Franco dictatorship (which appropriated the Spanish flag) is still relatively recent.
It always felt weird to me the open display of flags in the US and UK in non-sports related environments. In Spain use of the flag feels weird, mostly by association to those who don't mind wearing it all the time.
OTOH, regional/nationalist flags were a sign of modernity and opposition to the system, so don't carry the same stigma.
Not seeing how that would make the flag bad (not a criticism, not quite catching that). I should note in the Americas, there have been lots of dictators, but that didn't impact the view of the flag of the relevant countries. "Don't cry for me Argentina. The truth is thismusicalisreallyboringandInearlyfellasleepwatchingitandendedupturningitoff..".
So on the "big island" besides Scotland and Wales, are there other non English locations?
The "big island" is Great Britain, and it contains England, Wales and Scotland (all three of which also extend onto other islands; Not many significant ones in England that I can name, Anglesey in Wales and loads of island groups in Scotland). Unless some total fruitloop has declared personal independence in his shed, there are no other nations in Great Britain.
As for the Spanish flag being problematic in some areas, I think it's that the "main" Spanish identity has been forced onto the various regional groups - Catalonia, Basque, etc. In America, you can be Texan and American (and French, Irish, Russian, whatever your granny was). In places like Spain and France, it was mandated for a long time that you could only be Spanish or French. I believe France has relaxed, and things like Breton identity is making a comeback.* What would you think if the US Congress banned any expression of Texan identity in favour of making you all generically "American"?
Britain did the same thing in Wales and Scotland (and Cornwall), suppressing the local Welsh and Gaelic languages, and you can also look at what happened to indigenous children in Canada, Australia and I think in the USA.
*As an aside, the stereotypical British idea of a Frenchman - stripy jumper, string of onions, bicycle - is actually Breton - they'd come over from Brittany to England to sell onions during the summer months. Many of them didn't actually speak any French, so the fact that they're what we all think Frenchmen are like is a rather confusing to actual French people.
Unless some total fruitloop has declared personal independence in his shed, there are no other nations in Great Britain.
Nearly...:
While it has been described as the world's smallest country[6] or nation,[7] Sealand is not officially recognised by any established sovereign state in spite of Sealand's government's claim that it has been de facto recognised by the United Kingdom[3] and Germany.[8] The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in force since 1994 states "Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf".[9] Since 1987, Sealand lies within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.[10]
Snake Tortoise wrote: I hate this topic. Any time the subject of English identity comes up the left start talking about the far right, racism, colonialism etc. It's to belittle anybody with a shred of pride in their cultural identity (the small minded bigots that we are) because what we should be feeling is shame, every second of every day, and awe at foreign, non-white cultures- the less progressive the culture the more they should be respected.
Oh trust me that is going on here too. Nationalism is considered bad now. I always respected the English for having a strong sense of national pride. I'd hate to see that go.
I thought we were much further down that road than you. National pride is a dirty concept here
SJW and 'triggered' both come from the US adoption of the social engineering model from Europe. It is effective and is damaging, but ultimately it will fail. The US is too big to dogmatise, and Americans are flag flying to a fault, but this will actually help them here. I pity the man to try and maneuver American politics to make Americans feel shamed to be American. It could work, as in its a realistic threat, and has been tried, but ultimately it will fail utterly, I don't think I need to explain why.
Disagree, almost all of the theoretical underpinnings and concepts that form the "SJW" movement come from the US, specifically certain parts of US universities. For example, concepts like "white privilege" are clearly of US origin, as they dont make any sense in a European context.
A rant about “SJWs” just comes across poorly. If you can’t articulate why it is an issue without insulting people who disagree with you I would suggest that you probably need to very carefully check your arguments. Especially when you clearly don’t understand what the issue is.
First I do not "rant", that is rather loaded as I articulate my comments clearly. Second the switching goalposts of acceptable terminology for political leverage is a hallmark of SJW's, amongst others, and I make no apology for the term.
As fro my arguments, they don't need much checking, though I do to keep ahead. I theorised this twenty years ago, before the consequences occured and much of the surrounding terminology. I was proven correct then, and am still correct now, and now have the benefit/confirmation of hindsight.
Yes I do understand what the issue is. Do you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: How does that make the flag bad?
Maybe this is a topic for another thread or pm.
Negative association can be a forced social change, and need not have a logical basis. Though the move has an intelligence behind it.
So long as one controls the dialectic one controls the thinking, and thus one can arbitrarily declare selective iconography to be negative for political gain.
It is very unlikely to work in America with the national flag, and attempts to do so in the UK are having mixed results. In the UK in the Blair years the Union flag and St George flag meant far right according to government dictat of the time. The iconography was soiled markedly quickly, though some applications were spared. Since 2006 and a widespread refusal not to fly the flag there was an active change in policy. The national flag was acceptable, but it specifically meant sport, this was mainly because the flag was always used to represent sport, and in the case of football could be marginalised as quasi-far right, but the rugby world cup brought the flag as back in the open waved by the middle classes in large numbers and could not really be all packaged into the same label so there was a sea change in application from a national level. The St George flag was still restricted by the back door for public buildings as 'racism' but was trotted out as a sign of sporting achievement, to a less extent the Union flag also.
AndrewGPaul wrote: a) part of England, b) not part of the island of Great Britain.
The isle of Man is its own weird thing, but is again a separate island.)
true that, the Isle of Wight just feels like a bit of Hampshire/Sussex that accidentally detached and drifted off till releasing it was getting closer to the France and stopped
the Isle of Man feels like its from 'elsewhere' and the TT is an elaborate blood sacrifice to appease the old gods
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "Rant" is negatively loaded but "SJW" is completely not a derogatory term at all.
Rant is loaded because it is used to shut down another persons commentary.
Call it commentary and you read it with an open mind. Call it a rant and minds need not be open, its just a 'rant' sp move on.
I referred to SJW's as a current meme for a subfaction that most certainly does exist. SJW probably is derogatory but then is so much else, including just from this thread labels such as far/alt right. These are common handles, and while it would be derogatory to label and individual here as far right or an SJW without proof, I'm not doing that. References to the phenomenon itself are not derogatory, merely controversial, and we should be able to handle controversial topics through reasoned critique.
There is a distinction between the topic of a post and the post itself. One can talk about the SJW phenomenon under any language, I prefer to use the common dialectic. Whether any specific comment is a 'rant' or not is deterministic on the post itself, not it's content and is a form of adhominem attack when there is a logical structure to what one posts, and my posts are always content driven. It may not be content you like, but that deosnt make it a 'rant'.
In my experience, to be English is to get very nervous when confronted by anything Northern Irish. I go over to England and open my mouth, they get nervous. My English cousins come over here and it’s all “why are all the police carrying guns? And why do all the walls have paintings of men in masks with guns? Am I going to be shot?” So silly.
Future War Cultist wrote: In my experience, to be English is to get very nervous when confronted by anything Northern Irish. I go over to England and open my mouth, they get nervous. My English cousins come over here and it’s all “why are all the police carrying guns? And why do all the walls have paintings of men in masks with guns? Am I going to be shot?” So silly.
I thought all that was just to discourage them nearby Liverpuds from out staying their welcome
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "Rant" is negatively loaded but "SJW" is completely not a derogatory term at all.
Rant is loaded because it is used to shut down another persons commentary.
And labelling someone an SJW isn't?
The difference between "alt-right", "far right" and "SJW" is that only one of them was created as a label to attack political opponents. "Alt-right" and "far right" are both in relation to the "ordinary" or "normal" right and thus perfectly usable in scientific discourse because they're relational; "SJW" exists as a buzzword to attack people, with absolutely no way of defining it beyond "those people on the left that I disagree with". I get the point that it's a convenient handle for a political group of people, but it's also hopelessly subjective in a way that "far right" and "alt right" isn't (that's not to say they're not more than a little subjective too, just that there's a difference in both degree and kind).
Of note is also the fact that there are people that actually call themselves "alt right", whereas you'd have to look very hard to find anyone even remotely prominent that wears "SJW" like a badge of honour. If "blacks" as a term of self-identification makes it "safe from rational attempts to claim insult", as you put it (which I'd probably agree with entirely BTW) then "alt right" should be extended the same courtesy, no?
Hence you're ranting, because "SJW" as a label is completely meaningless beyond "people on the left that I disagree with". Your posts are thus judged in exactly the same way that a long treatise on what effect "libtards" or "special snowflakes" are having on society. If the premise you're starting from is one that's been created for the purpose of denigrating one's political opponents then it doesn't matter how eloquently you express yourself because the end result still becomes a rant against people of a political view that you don't share. As you noted yourself, a rant doesn't have to be wrong, but it's not something people will bother reading because it shows that you're not arguing in good faith.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "Rant" is negatively loaded but "SJW" is completely not a derogatory term at all.
Rant is loaded because it is used to shut down another persons commentary.
And labelling someone an SJW isn't?
The difference between "alt-right", "far right" and "SJW" is that only one of them was created as a label to attack political opponents. "Alt-right" and "far right" are both in relation to the "ordinary" or "normal" right and thus perfectly usable in scientific discourse because they're relational; "SJW" exists as a buzzword to attack people, with absolutely no way of defining it beyond "those people on the left that I disagree with". I get the point that it's a convenient handle for a political group of people, but it's also hopelessly subjective in a way that "far right" and "alt right" isn't (that's not to say they're not more than a little subjective too, just that there's a difference in both degree and kind).
Of note is also the fact that there are people that actually call themselves "alt right", whereas you'd have to look very hard to find anyone even remotely prominent that wears "SJW" like a badge of honour. If "blacks" as a term of self-identification makes it "safe from rational attempts to claim insult", as you put it (which I'd probably agree with entirely BTW) then "alt right" should be extended the same courtesy, no?
Hence you're ranting, because "SJW" as a label is completely meaningless beyond "people on the left that I disagree with". Your posts are thus judged in exactly the same way that a long treatise on what effect "libtards" or "special snowflakes" are having on society. If the premise you're starting from is one that's been created for the purpose of denigrating one's political opponents then it doesn't matter how eloquently you express yourself because the end result still becomes a rant against people of a political view that you don't share. As you noted yourself, a rant doesn't have to be wrong, but it's not something people will bother reading because it shows that you're not arguing in good faith.
Are you seriously implying "far right" was not a label invented to attack certain political positions? It is relational, yes, and that is exactly where the problem with the label lies as it implies that "far right" is not 'normal', that it lies beyond 'serious' politics, and its definition shifts depending on the political position of the speaker. "Far right" does not have a precise definition and is as much of a buzzword as "SJW" is, or terms such as "fascist" and "communist". They are all labels used to shut down the opinions of a certain group without actually engaging with their arguments. If you want to seriously engage someone in a political discussion you should avoid using such labels entirely.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "Rant" is negatively loaded but "SJW" is completely not a derogatory term at all.
Rant is loaded because it is used to shut down another persons commentary.
And labelling someone an SJW isn't?
The difference between "alt-right", "far right" and "SJW" is that only one of them was created as a label to attack political opponents. "Alt-right" and "far right" are both in relation to the "ordinary" or "normal" right and thus perfectly usable in scientific discourse because they're relational; "SJW" exists as a buzzword to attack people, with absolutely no way of defining it beyond "those people on the left that I disagree with". I get the point that it's a convenient handle for a political group of people, but it's also hopelessly subjective in a way that "far right" and "alt right" isn't (that's not to say they're not more than a little subjective too, just that there's a difference in both degree and kind).
Of note is also the fact that there are people that actually call themselves "alt right", whereas you'd have to look very hard to find anyone even remotely prominent that wears "SJW" like a badge of honour. If "blacks" as a term of self-identification makes it "safe from rational attempts to claim insult", as you put it (which I'd probably agree with entirely BTW) then "alt right" should be extended the same courtesy, no?
Hence you're ranting, because "SJW" as a label is completely meaningless beyond "people on the left that I disagree with". Your posts are thus judged in exactly the same way that a long treatise on what effect "libtards" or "special snowflakes" are having on society. If the premise you're starting from is one that's been created for the purpose of denigrating one's political opponents then it doesn't matter how eloquently you express yourself because the end result still becomes a rant against people of a political view that you don't share. As you noted yourself, a rant doesn't have to be wrong, but it's not something people will bother reading because it shows that you're not arguing in good faith.
Are you seriously implying "far right" was not a label invented to attack certain political positions? It is relational, yes, and that is exactly where the problem with the label lies as it implies that "far right" is not 'normal', that it lies beyond 'serious' politics, and its definition shifts depending on the political position of the speaker. "Far right" does not have a precise definition and is as much of a buzzword as "SJW" is, or terms such as "fascist" and "communist". They are all labels used to shut down the opinions of a certain group without actually engaging with their arguments. If you want to seriously engage someone in a political discussion you should avoid using such labels entirely.
What the feth has any of this gak got to do with the topic of this thread?
Here’s a novel idea for everyone involved with this derailment. How about dropping that crap and arguing it in PMs or a new thread of your own before you get this nice light hearted thread locked. How’s that sound?
Future War Cultist wrote: How about dropping that crap and arguing it in PMs or a new thread of your own before you get this nice light hearted thread locked.
Future War Cultist wrote: How about dropping that crap and arguing it in PMs or a new thread of your own before you get this nice light hearted thread locked.
This is good advice.
Thanks!
Second that emotion.
Are patterns of dress any different in areas of Englandia? How would traditional English compare themselves to Canadians and fair Canadia?*
*trufact, you can actually annoy Canadians by calling Canada Canadia..tee hee...
Here’s a novel idea for everyone involved with this derailment. How about dropping that crap and arguing it in PMs or a new thread of your own......
This is relevant to the topic, however the commentary on English culture and the political overtones related to its changes have been argued on the semantics involved more than the policies. However that too is indicative. There is a lot of labelling involved, criticise failures in multi-culturalism, and some will assume you must be far right. The SJW phenomenon is an extension of that. This turns the critique full circle, though the latter stage is political evolution and not sequential policy. Subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.
before you get this nice light hearted thread locked. How’s that sound?
Interesting. Maybe you seem to think national identity is a 'trivia' or maybe even a 'joke' subject, it's most certainly serious topic elsewhere including elsewhere in the UK. Do you think that English cultural identity is a fringe topic, is that the ideology of your peer group? What age range is said peer group?
AndrewGPaul wrote: a) part of England, b) not part of the island of Great Britain.
The isle of Man is its own weird thing, but is again a separate island.)
true that, the Isle of Wight just feels like a bit of Hampshire/Sussex that accidentally detached and drifted off till releasing it was getting closer to the France and stopped
the Isle of Man feels like its from 'elsewhere' and the TT is an elaborate blood sacrifice to appease the old gods
The Needles Battery is actually the bridge of HMS Isle of Wight piloting it into the Atlantic to get away from the rest of Great Britain
What the feth has any of this gak got to do with the topic of this thread?
Quite a bit actually. This is about English culture, which some believe, and evidently others dont has been suvertd for political gain.
The entire point of being English is to not take things like English culture seriously. Anyone who does is clearly a foreign type of some kind or probably sporting tattoos of an unsalubrious type. We don't hold truck with all that terribly vulgar flag waving and national pride malarkey over here. Even knowing all the words to the national anthem is awfully suspect (which at least has decency to be suitably dreary and boring).
It's a terribly slippery slope after all. One minute you're boasting about how great you are at football compared to Spain, the next you've accidentally won the Race for Africa and conquered half the world just because someone fired a starting pistol. And then having done so, you've got to pay to upkeep it all, as our American cousins are learning. Far better to simply abstain from all that jingoistic self-congratulatory rhetoric in the first place, and spend the extra cash on cream teas and Pimms.
After all, when you know you're the best, why be gauche and shove it in other people's faces? We know, and that's good enough. It's why we lose at cricket; we've got to give the rest of the world something to feel good about.
Here’s a novel idea for everyone involved with this derailment. How about dropping that crap and arguing it in PMs or a new thread of your own......
This is relevant to the topic, however the commentary on English culture and the political overtones related to its changes have been argued on the semantics involved more than the policies. However that too is indicative. There is a lot of labelling involved, criticise failures in multi-culturalism, and some will assume you must be far right. The SJW phenomenon is an extension of that. This turns the critique full circle, though the latter stage is political evolution and not sequential policy. Subtle difference but a difference nonetheless.
before you get this nice light hearted thread locked. How’s that sound?
Interesting. Maybe you seem to think national identity is a 'trivia' or maybe even a 'joke' subject, it's most certainly serious topic elsewhere including elsewhere in the UK. Do you think that English cultural identity is a fringe topic, is that the ideology of your peer group? What age range is said peer group?
Oh no, I think English cultural identity is very important. I actually agree with a good portion of the points you made, that ‘English’ has almost become a dirty word. I just thought that this was a more causal thread that looked in danger of getting locked. Apologies for snapping at you.
Zingraff wrote: I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
While our home cooking was never that bad our institutional cooking has been (and in some cases still is) terrible, with far too many vegetables boiled to the point of inedibility
Zingraff wrote: I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
While our home cooking was never that bad our institutional cooking has been (and in some cases still is) terrible, with far too many vegetables boiled to the point of inedibility
doesn't help that sprouts are inedible to start with and shouldn't even be used as animal feed lest it taints the meat
Zingraff wrote: I don't understand why English cooking is always treated like a standing joke, it's notably superior to Norwegian cooking, and our food isn't that bad.
While our home cooking was never that bad our institutional cooking has been (and in some cases still is) terrible, with far too many vegetables boiled to the point of inedibility
doesn't help that sprouts are inedible to start with and shouldn't even be used as animal feed lest it taints the meat
Obviously not. It is no coincidence that cooked Brussels sprouts smell like sulfur. Hell also smells like sulfur. Clearly that is where Brussels sprouts come from. Absolutely not edible for neither man nor beast.
So on the "big island" besides Scotland and Wales, are there other non English locations?
Kernow - Cornwall is another "Celtic fringe" with its own language.
Isle of Man has its own Celtic language and parliament.
The Scottish Islands are interestingly different (both Western Isles and the Orkneys and Shetland Isles). The Gaelic tradition in the North and West of Scotland is very different from the Border country (where people went from speaking Brythonic - Old Welsh - to Aenglish earlier than many parts of England). The Islands and Man all have a Viking tradition too.
Besides doing Cream Tea's wrong, the constant efforts to revive 'Cornish' is a source of bemusement, it died somewhere around the early 1800's and the what is touted these days is a lot of cobbled together approximation on the level of Klingon or Drothraki
Iron_Captain wrote: Just something completely unrelated I have been always wondering about the Welsh:
Why the hell do they write Cymru but pronounce it something like Cumry? That does not make sense!
I thought it was pronounced "BAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: In my experience, to be English is to get very nervous when confronted by anything Northern Irish. I go over to England and open my mouth, they get nervous. My English cousins come over here and it’s all “why are all the police carrying guns? And why do all the walls have paintings of men in masks with guns? Am I going to be shot?” So silly.
Reminds me of the plastic paddies I know from up north (mostly from Boston and New York), when they found out the "Scots-Irish" equals "Ulster Scots" on one drunken St. Patrick's Day, and that I was 25% Ulster Scot (in addition to the Welsh and English ancestry). The fact that I toasted the Queen just to piss them off probably didn't help matters any.
Americans of Irish decent take that stuff dead serious. ESPECIALLY on St. Paddy's Day.
.
