What Makes you British?

[B_Swimming Lad]

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:

Yes my passion is probably too extreme. Just be thankful that, as of yet, there is no thread on Russian history. Then the sparks would really fly...

 

[dong20]

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.)

I see your point but on balance I don't believe so, not least because the English are 'merely' the end product of a fusion of many nationalities, albeit primarily Northern European. All have been diluted (and enriched) over the centuries including input from Scots, Irish and Welsh for that matter. By that argument with European not being an ethnicity I can't see how it would work.

I suppose it depends on how you define ethnicity, for example, I have friends who are from many different 'ethnicities' in one sense, but they're all English - having been born here. So, if one defines ethnicity by it's social sense of a common ancestry then surely the term English can't apply to them, or only in a nationality sense, or are they British?

Skin colour is only one aspect of ethinicity, but it's the one most people tend to focus on, here at least, by that definition again, I don't see how someone who is 2nd generation African immigrant say, can be ethnically English, though they may (rightly) consider themselves nationally so.

I guess, like many social issues there isn't necessarily a single right or wrong answer, only opinion. I can see that there could be an argument for English ethincity by the former definition, old families if you like, the question being how far back does one need to step before outside 'influence' may be disregarded?

For example most would consider the Royal Family the very definition of Englishness,(or even Britishness) but in reality that wouldn't be an especially accurate assessment if we use that criteria. If we use an open statement that merely being born in England makes one ethnically English one must surely discard the shared ancestry definition and find another....in other words ethnicity is in the mind of the definer, it can mean, or be measured against many different criteria, nationality being only one.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Yes my passion is probably too extreme. Just be thankful that, as of yet, there is no thread on Russian history. Then the sparks would really fly...

And I would read with interest.
Have you read The Young Stalin, by Simon Sebag Montefiore? A fascinating account of the dictator's early life. He was quite a piece of business, as you know. But in some ways, a very impressive man.
Forgive me if you hate to hear him described positively in any way.
But he managed to claw his way to the top for some very good reasons.
The book is quite a cautionary tale in the malevolent force of certain ideas.

 

[Not_Punny]

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.

With all due respect, England had its own version of slavery (indentured labor) and the penal code was nothing short of barbaric. The British Empire wasn't exactly user friendly to natives either, including their dear neighbor, Ireland. Add to that the swinging tides of fanatical religious oppression (think Bloody Mary, King Henry VIII, Charles I, the Roundheads, etc. etc. etc.)

As to our ideals and constitution -- IDEALISTS may have been saying similar things (about freedom), but few countries actually had them in practice.

- - - - - -

I am an American but went to school in England. I probably know more about English history than many Brits. My older sister is English and I have many friends over there. I love England, but I find it really lame when people start bashing other countries for things that happened a couple of hundred years ago -- especially when their own historical hands are so amazingly bloody.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I see your point but on balance I don't believe so.

Case made, dong.
Tnx.

 

[dong20]

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

Even worse, I agree with you too. Too many atrocities have been commited by nationalists wearing the 'velvet' glove of patriotism.

 

[Gitana Rose]

I have been English for short periods of time...

By erection injection only

(it was good while it lasted:tongue

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

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.

Well, the UK certainly beat the Americans on the abolition of slavery.
You had the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, though complete abolition throughout the Empire didn't occur until 1838.

The Americans didn't achieve this until the end of the Civil War in 1865.

But I'm not so sure the UK was ahead in the enfranchisement of women.

You gave women the vote in 1928, which American women had enjoyed sinced the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1920.

Interestingly, New Zealand had given women the vote in 1893 ... the first major nation to do so, I believe.

In Canada, we were plodding a bit. The province of Quebec only gave women the vote in 1940, if memory serves.

(BTW, lest anyone be fooled, Google is my friend.)

 

[dong20]

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.

I agree, many of the events in our history have been at least conceived on idealistic grounds, even if the exectution was hijacked by those with a less than benevolent intent. Britain (and the US) are both guilty of appalling acts for which we should be ashamed, and in many cases are.

That said, there is a healthy degree of selective amnesia for those who may have been involved, then and now, and blinkered vision when it comes to those who would cling to the notion, we would never do that. But we have, and what's more, if the need arose I'm quite sure we will do it again.

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.

We gave our colonies back primarily because we were broke and couldn't afford to keep and run them against their growing pressure for indenpendence. I suspect morality was the weaker partner in that two horse race, but then I'm cynical when it comes to using Government and morality in the same sentence. I agree that morality isn't capable of application at a national level, any more than a sense of humour is.

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?

The first nation to 'abolish' slavery was, technically Japan in 1588. But in the context we mean here, I believe it was Portugal in the early 1760's. Britain passed the abolition act in 1833 coming into effect fully over the following 5 years. The US followed nationally in 1865 (though some states did so as early as 1777, Vermont I think).

Incidentally, in England and Wales slavery was curtailed in practical terms from the 1772 Somersett Case, though this judgement didn't apply elsewhere in the Empire.

The presiding judge (Chief Justice Holt) saying:

"...as soon as a negro comes to England he is free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave." This is often misquoted as "The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe".

Women obtained the vote in England in two stages, in 1918 women over 30 could vote but not until 1928 did it become universal. In the US it was patchy from the 1750's until it became national in 1920 I believe.

<Aside>
A little known fact is that a case in Scotland in 1774 set a precedent when a Joseph Knight petitioned for release from his 'master'. His 'master' made a case that slavery and perpetual servitude were not the same thing, and on the grounds that slavery was not recognised (officially) in Scotland, his being brought there from Jamaica relased him. The petition was denied, reversed on appeal and then that reversal was later reversed, despite the concession that slavery didn't exist in Scotland.
</aside>

 

[DaveyR]

I don't really feel entitled to post in this thread but I will. Whilst I hate to see Britain criticised by none Brits I hated living there and chose to move away 2 years ago. I've been back once in 2 years and couldn't wait to get home to Spain.

 

[2322]

Why would we shudder at the name Paul Revere?? He's a great patriot (and America's finest silversmith of the period) in our books.

This is like the death penalty issue in that there are degrees of degrees. The UK is a construction not all that different from the United States. The US invaded or bought territory as it expanded but then so did the Normans when they arrived in 1066. They moved in on the native Saxons and took over. They never left. Then England took Cornwall, Ireland, Wales, Man, and finally Scotland with the Act of Union. I'll give Man and the channel islands a bit of a break as they exist in a netherworld of semi-dependent states. Scotland was the closest thing to an equal joining but if you ask quite a few Scots, they'd disagree that Scotland is anything equal to England in national affairs. The only place within the isles that eventually gained freedom was Ireland and even that, from the perspective of the Irish, is only partial.

The difference in all of this is time. As the UK expanded it never released any of these countries as the US never released any of the nations within its home borders. The closest thing now is Blair's devolution scheme. The US simply had a lot more room in which to expand and did so relatively quickly and recently so it's much more present in our minds.

Another misconception is the situation with empire. At the end of WWII both the US and the UK released territories because they found that it was much cheaper and easier to pay someone to do it for them. Naturally the UK took much longer as there were so many places to withdraw from, but on the whole, the notion of empire simply changed. From political entities they evolved into economic entities. Today the UK, along with the US, back numerous regimes in former colonial areas. In some cases these are direct dictatorships or nominal democracies. Either way, they allow our economic power to be projected without the overt territorial effort. Through entities such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, "foreign aid," and secret payments, we still maintain control of many places directly or indirectly. Empire serves two needs for a nation, to secure strategic resources OR to secure strategic territory. We still hold on to Guam and Israel as the UK still holds on to Gibralter and Oman. Does the US claim Israel as territory? No. It doesn't have to. Does the UK claim Oman as territory? No. It doesn't have to. Each respective nation, however, controls the other either overtly or covertly.

The UK is ridiculously powerful in the world compared to her size. Via her intelligence, alliances, wealth, and economic apparatuses, the UK ranks as one of top five most powerful nations in the world. What used to be a territorial empire has transformed into an economic and political empire.

The other factor in all this is that UK and US view each other as necessary allies. That we share a common history, some aspects of culture, language, and strategic goals only strengthens the relationship. In WWII it quickly became obvious to both countries that each was imperative to the other's security. If the UK was taken by Hitler, then the US lost a foothold on the continent. If the US was overthrown or invaded, then the UK lost the security offered by her island status. In American military minds, the UK is the most strategic asset in all of Europe (sorry to lump you in there). Likewise, Churchill and every PM since him, has operated on the policy that the US is the final guarantor of UK sovereignty. Thatcher reiterated this, Blair acted upon it. Little remarked was that when the Falklands were invaded Reagan immediately offered to activate the US navy to assist the UK but Thatcher (wisely) declined. When the US went into Iraq, the UK followed. The two are, whether their respective peoples like it or not, joined at the hip.

English is an ethnicity in as much as the English, the Anglo-Saxons really, were, and still are, an ethnic group. Over time however, English has come to mean residents of England, not those of English ethnicity. So while there are ethnic English people, the term English now refers more to those who are born or live in England regardless of their ethnic history.

As to the business of Americans being called Americans even though the continent is shared by other nations, the same is true of the UK. Unless one identifies themselves as part of one of the subnations of the UK (English, Welsh, Scots, etc.), they're generically termed British, a reference, like American, to the geographic region even though a Welshman claiming he's British doesn't mean he's also Scots. We call ourselves American because it's the last word of our official name. United Statesians is just clumsy and besides, there are other countries, particularly Mexico, with the words, United States, in their official name. The same is true with the UK. Taken in its official long name, someone who is British would actually be claiming they're Irish! So it's much less clumsy, and perhaps more accurate, to claim to be British even if you don't necessarily live on the island of Great Britain itself.

I have always wanted to be Manx just so I can tell inquirers, in my most Austin Powersish imitation, "I'm a Man man."

For the record, I love the UK. It's a beautiful island in the parts that aren't covered in urban blight. The people are generally very friendly, particularly in Wales and Scotland, and, save for their vile native cuisine ('Ave any mutton an' eyeball pie there dearie?'} and questionable automobile electronics, I admire their achievements. There's a lot of British blood in me too and that does count for something I'm sure. I'd be proud to own a British passport even if I would be less than thrilled to be any monarch's subject.

One other thing. We talk about things that happened in history and if we speak about the sins of the fathers then we cannot visit those same sins on the sons. Both countries have had people who have done some atrocious or stupid things in the past. The nations we have now are truly built on the past, but they are not the present.

 

[Principessa]

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

I disagree. It is possible to be patriotic without being a nationalist.

 

[2322]

And one other thing. Vermont never had slavery. Vermont was an independent republic prior to its admission to the United States and slavery was banned when the republic was formed. It is one of the reasons Vermont is the most homogeneous state in the US.

 

[got_lost]

Are you an English fan? Feel depressed? Down in the dumps? Then call the R.F.U help-line on 0800 10 10 10.... That's 0800 won nothing won nothing won nothing!:tongue::biggrin1:

OMFG!!!!

Hot chocolate just came out my nose!!! :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

Tooooo funny sir!! :tongue:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Through entities such as the IMF, World Bank, UN, "foreign aid," and secret payments, we still maintain control of many places directly or indirectly.

In some degree or other. But certainly, in the case of the UN, it's the observation and objection of many Americans, principally neocons, that the UN is a source of frustration of American interests.
The "foreign aid" is not very substantial these days.

Empire serves two needs for a nation, to secure strategic resources OR to secure strategic territory. We still hold on to Guam and Israel as the UK still holds on to Gibralter and Oman. Does the US claim Israel as territory? No. It doesn't have to. Does the UK claim Oman as territory? No. It doesn't have to. Each respective nation, however, controls the other either overtly or covertly.

I think Israel has been quite willing to stand apart from American directives in many matters, often very publicly. The tail seems to wag the dog a great deal.

English is an ethnicity inasmuch as the English, the Anglo-Saxons really, were, and still are, an ethnic group. Over time however, English has come to mean residents of England, not those of English ethnicity. So while there are ethnic English people, the term English now refers more to those who are born or live in England regardless of their ethnic history.

The question is whether the English ethnic thread has survived in any real sense. Dong was suggesting it had not. The racial element of ethnicity would have been substantially blurred; the cultural element would have been utterly smudged out of existence, imo (virtually any second generation resident of England would have absorbed the cultural imprint, and a long line of descent from English forebears would not make much difference here ... or at least that's what I'm guessing).

You also suggest that 'British' can apply to people from Northern Ireland. I've always been confused about this. Some people seem to think it applies, if at all, only to the Protestant people of Northern Ireland. And some seem to think the people of Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom but not, technically, British.
I've never sorted this out.

 

[DaveyR]

And some seem to think the people of Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom but not, technically, British.
I've never sorted this out.

That is something that the so called experts and politicians have been trying to work out for decades so don't feel bad about it.

 

[kalipygian]

I understand, but to me pride in one's nationality is as rational as pride in having say, blue eyes. You played no active role in the process. I can feel pride in particular actions Britain may take, feel pride when we (occasionally) stand by our principles but not in the mere concept of nationality. I appreciate it may come down to the same thing for many.



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.



The commonwealth is a glorified talking shop and private club, the Monarch is the titular head but she has (with a few very limited execeptions) no authority over commonwealth nations.



Well, we have a copyright on one dialect of a bigger one and that religious tolerance is but a recent and increasingly fragile phenomenon.



Perhaps, though I'd suggest Mr B could give Mrs W a fair run in the recognisabilty stakes, albeit for the wrong reasons. And no, the Oldest Monarchy (Japan) predates ours by almost a millenium, but, true to form we do come a respectable second.



That's a result of geology and geography not a cause for pride, isn't it?



See above. Of the nations I've been to, I do think the UK is one of the worlds most beautiful, but again it doesn't inspire pride in me, because I had no hand in it.



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



Of course we are. But, I'll grant you, freedom from oppression is the only important thing you've mentioned so far.[/quote

The Japanese Imperial family is traced to the goddess Amaterasu, Japanese written history begins at the 7th century, prior to that is myth. The British royal lineage can be traced through the kings of Wessex and Mercia to the mid fifth century in England, then through a few generations on the continent to the god Odin. The same claim is made for Denmark, with a shorter written history.

 

[kalipygian]

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.

Not to excuse the hypocrisy of slave owning, liberty spouting Americans.

No one signed the original Magna Carta, it was issued in the name of, and had affixed the seal of King John, no one else. Likely nearly all the listed parties, Earls, Barons, Bishops, Abbots, the Papal Nuncio, the Prior of the Templars, the Welsh Princes, the King of Scotland, owned serfs. Much the same thing then, except that they could not be sold out of the country.

 

[2322]

In some degree or other. But certainly, in the case of the UN, it's the observation and objection of many Americans, principally neocons, that the UN is a source of frustration of American interests.
The "foreign aid" is not very substantial these days.

Official foreign aid, yes. Unofficial foreign aid disguised as classified budget allocations to intelligence agencies we don't know. Given the size of their budgets, it's entirely possible.

I think Israel has been quite willing to stand apart from American directives in many matters, often very publicly. The tail seems to wag the dog a great deal.

Only to a point. True Israel will not allow itself to compromised to the point of strategic weakness, but they will only go against US wishes to a point. I can think of no other country that would be attacked by another only to do nothing at the behest of another nation. This is why the situation with Iran is critical. Israel will likely not allow Iran to go nuclear under any circumstance whether the US wants it or not. We have got to open dialog with Iran or eventually see Israeli planes do their stuff on Iranian soil. Ahmadinejad may have minority support among his people but his publicity campaign for nuclear power has swayed many mainstream Iranians who would see an Israeli attack as a reason for war. In essence, Ahmadinejad has done an end run around the mullahs above him on this issue.

The question is whether the English ethnic thread has survived in any real sense. Dong was suggesting it had not. The racial element of ethnicity would have been substantially blurred; the cultural element would have been utterly smudged out of existence, imo (virtually any second generation resident of England would have absorbed the cultural imprint, and a long line of descent from English forebears would not make much difference here ... or at least that's what I'm guessing).

I truly can't say for sure. You'd probably need an anthropologist to say for sure. Anglo-Saxon culture is a bit of a mystery. There are mummers and Morris dancers and such. Whether these are genuine Anglo-Saxon traits I don't know.

You also suggest that 'British' can apply to people from Northern Ireland. I've always been confused about this. Some people seem to think it applies, if at all, only to the Protestant people of Northern Ireland. And some seem to think the people of Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom but not, technically, British.
I've never sorted this out.

What I was referring to was the full name of the UK, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you create a name for your nationality based upon the last word of the country's name, in this case, the result would be Irish or Irelanders and that's clearly right-out save for those of republican persuasions in Ulster.

From my experience in Ulster I can safely say the republicans think of themselves as Irish and, indeed, the Irish Republic gives automatic citizenship to anyone from Ulster who asks for it. The unionists think of themselves as British. Religion doesn't really play into it save that the republicans happen to usually be catholic and the unionists happen to usually be protestant. The heart of the conflict is not about religion since both can now practice their faiths freely. Though the clergy of both sides (certainly Reverend Paisley) do tend to side with their flocks, protestants haven't been killing catholics because they're catholic nor vice versa. There are plenty of protestant churches in the Republic and lots of catholic churches in Great Britain.

Whitehall would love to be out of Ulster entirely but they can't. This was stated several times in private discussions between the British government and the Provos. The problem is they can't leave. The unionists all have Union Jacks on their doors and windows and pictures of the queen in their kitchen. They are firmly British or, to coin an Irish phrase, "more British than British." The last thing a UK government wants to do is to withdraw and leave its people hung out to dry. Either a mass exodus of very angry voters would flood back into Great Britain, or there would be anarchy and possible violence resulting in many deaths. The Irish Republic doesn't want to have anything to do with Ulster at all. Yes they will support the republican sympathies by giving them citizenship and lots of lip service, but truthfully the people in the republic itself don't particularly care about Ulster. Prosperity has only amplified this view and yes, it does leave the Ulster republicans a bit peeved that their southern comrades don't care all that much. Besides, what would the republic DO with all those unionists should Ulster be handed over to them? They'd be stuck with a million people who have no connection to Ireland and don't want to be Irish. It would mean recreating the situation that started it all!

This is why everyone is so desperate to get home rule to work. There is no easy answer to any of it but the powers that be are aware that enfranchisement and economic prosperity lead to peaceful populations. Should they manage to keep the peace, there's no reason Ulster, already economically disadvantaged by UK standards, can't continue to gain in prosperity and, therefore, peace.

 

[PussyWellington]

Her majesty the Queen requests all whom it may concern to allow me to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful assistance and protection.


Salt and vinegar crisps.