What Makes you British?

[dong20]

I would have said that the Victorians had a very definite mission civilatrice. Which is not to say that the economic benefits were not primordial.

Perhaps, though most altruistic actions tended to come at the cost of a severe and generally non optional Bible bashing. For one's own good, naturally.:smile:

 

[dong20]

"English" is an ethnicity.

Err no, it's not. Any more than say, Texan is.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Perhaps, though most altruistic actions tended to come at the cost of a severe and generally non optional Bible bashing. For one's own good, naturally.:smile:

I assume that "Bible bashing" means "bashing with the Bible," not of it.
But wasn't that part of the mission civilatrice ... bringing them up to our level spiritually?
The condescension seems ridiculous today, but a century and a half ago ...

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

Had, and I think you need to polish your rose tinted specs; the British Empire was entirely economic, spreading our 'developed' culture never entered into it. It seems to me that we gained far more than those we exploited, and let's be honest it was exploitation. Any cultural exchange was incidental. Hardly a source of pride IMHO.

I never said spreading development was the initial purpose of the Empire. Just a happy byproduct.

Perhaps, though I'd suggest Mr B could give Mrs W a fair run in the recognisabilty stakes, albeit for the wrong reasons.

I doubt it.

And no, the Oldest Monarchy (Japan) predates ours by almost a millenium, but, true to form we do come a respectable second.

Fair enough. Hats of to Japan. :biggrin1:

I'm sure they were very proud of their acheivements.

I can be proud for the achievements made by my countrymen. Its called Patriotism.

 

[sortofbigthen]

lolZ BAD TEETH LOLZ OMG!111

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

"English" is an ethnicity.

Err no, it's not. Any more than say, Texan is.

I almost posted on that, as you did, dong.
Then I thought, being Scottish or being Welsh might be an ethnicity.
And so might being English, though by now a very diluted one.
Such that only a portion of those who currently live in England, as UK citizens, could truly call themselves ethnically English.
What say you, dong?
(I don't have a clue ... I'm asking a real question.)

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I can be proud for the achievements made by my countrymen. Its called Patriotism.

I think we can buy that.
Patriotism, as opposed to nationalism, can be good.

 

[dong20]

I assume that "Bible bashing" means "bashing with the Bible," not of it.
But wasn't that part of the mission civilatrice ... bringing them up to our level spiritually?
The condescension seems ridiculous today, but a century and a half ago ...

Indeed!

Yes it it was, but as you say, 150 years ago...or 150 years from now, morality (or spirituality) are products of and frameworks for contemporary society.

 

[Principessa]

Come on, NJ. You can't mean that.
The United States is far from being the only country that allows such thoughts to be voiced. The list is long: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France ...

My bad I meant to correct that in my preview and I clicked submit reply instead. :redface:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

My bad I meant to correct that in my preview and I clicked submit reply instead. :redface:

Fair enough.
Maybe we can forgive each other each time it happens!

 

[No_Strings]

Fair enough.
Maybe we can forgive each other each time it happens!

Who hasn't let one slip prematurely?

 

[frizzle]

I think we can buy that.
Patriotism, as opposed to nationalism, can be good.

I disagree, nationalism is a very well thought out political ideal and patriotism is usually a part of that ideal.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Who hasn't let one slip prematurely?

My understanding is that inveterate pond hoppers are always premature.

 

[sortofbigthen]

This is the only country on the planet that allows you to not only have such thoughts but voice them in an open forum without having you jailed for treason.

See, this is exactly the reason American schools need to teach more about the reality of the Revolution and not just the ego massaging myth that gets people like you waving flags. The fact you still shudder at the names of Paul Revere or George III is, frankly, laughable. If you can't get the story of your birth factually right, how the hell are you meant to understand your own national identity?

Freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness were cherished values long before America was ever "discovered" - that's why your constitution is based on numerous European texts from hundreds of years before (and those texts like Magna Carta, weren't signed by slave owning hypocrites either).

I love the idea that you truly believe that America was born fighting tyranny and has continued to do so, when the reality is it was born because you/they wanted more land and proceeded to take it - you then never stopped - not even when you reached the Pacific. You've done everything the former Empires you love to hate did, except one vital thing - you've never given the land back! Even now you're trying to keep Mexicans out of land they owned!

Slavery, womens votes, respect for land ownership, free speech, you've been years behind other people by years in each of these. Even terrorism came late to you, depsite funding the IRA for years before 2001.

If you do wish to make such bold comments, base them in reality. That way you won't have people, even your own countryfolk, running rings around you by bringing in the simplest and (outside America) most widely known facts.

There are a huge number of great things about the US (which is why I chose to move to New York), but as you manage to sum up in a single post, as a nation you've got a hell of a lot of growing up to do.

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

I disagree, nationalism is a very well thought out political ideal and patriotism is usually a part of that ideal.

Okay in refinement, but nationalism does tend to slip into fascism rather easily.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I disagree, nationalism is a very well thought out political ideal and patriotism is usually a part of that ideal.

I'm not surprised you say that.
I don't agree, however. Nationalism has led to many of the horrors, especially of the last century. The First and Second World Wars are good cases in point.
To be nationalistic is to promote your own interests as a member of a nation, over those of others. It plays an intrinsically zero-sum game.
Patriotism does no such thing. You love your country because you're British, say ... but you acknowledge that the Frenchman who loves France or the Brazilian who loves Brazil is equally well grounded in his feeling, and equally legitimate.

EDIT: Just saw this:

Okay in refinement, but nationalism does tend to slip into fascism rather easily.

That is part of what I meant to say.
Nationalism has far more potential for danger.

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

That is part of what I meant to say.

Shock Horror Rubi! Are we agreeing on something? :wink:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I love the idea that you truly believe that America was born fighting tyranny and has continued to do so, when the reality is it was born because you/they wanted more land and proceeded to take it - you then never stopped - not even when you reached the Pacific. You've done everything the former Empires you love to hate did, except one vital thing - you've never given the land back! Even now you're trying to keep Mexicans out of land they owned!

I agree that the United States has had a history much less forged by idealism than its citizens believe. That isn't, however, to say that there was no idealism shaping their evolution. There was, and in my opinion, continues to be.
But if you're simply saying the Americans have a lot of self-deceit on these matters, I think a lot of people, including many Americans, would agree. (Have you read Gore Vidal on these matters? He's priceless.)

On the matter of giving land back, however:
The United States no longer controls the Philippines. No longer controls the Panama Canal. Never stayed in the Dominican Republic.
What the Republic did do is keep hold of the contiguous land mass that its own expansion absorbed ... and I think most great nations (great in the sense of power ... not necessarily morality, which I don't think one can easily ascribe to an entire nation anyway) have done this.
This is normal behavior, not that I'd expect the indigenous people to much like it.

Slavery, womens votes, respect for land ownership, free speech, you've been years behind other people by years in each of these. Even terrorism came late to you, depsite funding the IRA for years before 2001.

I don't get the reference to terrorism. Is this supposed to be something to put on the debit side of the ledger?
As for slavery, women's votes, respect for land ownership, free speech ... this needs development.
Just who was in advance of the Americans, and by how much?

(I'm Canadian, BTW, and have no brief for my likeable but fallible southern neighbours.)

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Shock Horror Rubi! Are we agreeing on something? :wink:

Mais oui. I agree with a great deal of what you say.
But may we continue to cordially disagree when the cards so ordain?
I find your passion, forgive me, a wee bit amusing as I reach geezerhood.
I mean, I've held ... and dropped ... a thousand positions.
I can't take much too seriously any more.:tongue:

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

As for slavery, women's votes, respect for land ownership, free speech ... this needs development.
Just who was in advance of the Americans, and by how much?

(I'm Canadian, BTW, and have no brief for my likeable but fallible southern neighbours.)

The UK were ahead on votes for women and the abolision of slavery. (I expect others were before us)
I have no idea about the other topics. I'm quite intrigued too.