What Makes you British?

[PussyWellington]

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.

Actually the Queen/Governer General dismissed Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975.

 

[kalipygian]

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.)

Slavery in Britain actually ended sooner, it was declared by a judge to have no existence in law in 1770. Fear of this being applied to the colonies was one of the less celebrated causes of the American revolution.
The Royal Navy was active in curtailing the Atlantic slave trade during and after the Napoleanic wars. It was legally abolished for the empire in the time of William IV.
Slavery had been limited by William I, he forbade export of English slaves in 1102.

(Edit/ps: Rubi, if you feel like telling that 'phobe Ian Paisley he is not British, give me warning so I can stay well away:biggrin1

 

[Guy-jin]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. People born in Canada can correctly be called Canadians. Therefore, people born in America are Americans.

Actually, I'm not incorrect and I never disputed what you've just stated (go read my post again).

"Canadian" and "American" in that sense are nationalities, not really accurate to be called ethnicities. I never said people born in Canada or America couldn't be called Canadians or Americans respectively. I said "'American' isn't an ethnicity either, unless you're a Native American."

That said, the word "ethnicity" has a looser definition than the word "nationality", but it would be difficult for you to make a case for your "ethnicity" being "American" or "Canadian" when most people living in those countries can trace their origins to somewhere else ("Ethnicity" being classification based on origins of a group of people). That's why I clearly stated that Native Americans would be accurate in calling themselves "American" as an ethnicity, because that is where their traceable origins lie. However, anyone born in America or who's taken America as his or her home country would be accurate in calling American his or her nationality.

Now, you could say your origin is America or Canada because you were born there, and therefore you're a part of a greater American or Canadian ethnic group. However, because your origins truly stretch back farther than that, and it's plausible that you're able to trace them farther back, it wouldn't be particularly accurate.

I hope that makes sense. It's mostly semantic.

I looked this stuff up before I posted it the first time because I didn't think "British" was an ethnicity. Turns out it's not typically considered an ethnicity, but English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are, and those four groups together (North Irish anyway) constitute British as a nationality. Hope that clarifies that for rubi and dong20.

 

[kalipygian]

Actually the Queen/Governer General dismissed Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975.

The quote in your post has my name on it, but someone else said it, I did not.
(though I do not disagree, it is uncharacteristic that the Queen was personally politically involved when the Governor General and Prime Minister of Australia tried to de-recognise each other, she has declined to exercise the 'royal prerogative' on the three occasions in her reign she had discretion in choosing her British PM. My recollection is that Whitlam was overthrown from within his political party, as was Maggie.)

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

(Edit/ps: Rubi, if you feel like telling that 'phobe Ian Paisley he is not British, give me warning so I can stay well away:biggrin1

Please, Kali ... I may be an idiot, but I'm not a fool.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

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.

And yet, don't the Catholics hate the Protestants as Protestants, and vice versa? Old hatreds die hard ... and slowly.
The conflict shouldn't be religious at this point, but I suspect it still is, at least in part ... perhaps as an outcome of momentum as much as anything.

 

[Drifterwood]

You will find our lamb and beef in the finest Michelin starred restaurants of Paris.

You will see Scottish smoked salmon as a delicacy around the world.

If you have never had a Hereford or Angus Rib joint with fresh veg, roasties, rich gravy, horseradish etc with a couple of pints of Pedigree/London Pride/Adnams, then you haven't lived.

Try some real Cheddar, Stilton, Mrs. Appleby's lancashire, a British Cox and another couple of pints.

If you stay in mediocre hotels in London and elsewhere, you will get shit.

The old one about our food is as silly as saying that MacDonalds is American haute cuisine. I am a serious foodie and trust me, the UK has some excellent local ingredients, you just need to know what to do with them.

 

[2322]

No. In the past the religious aspect was more central to the issue but the only reason that protestants suspect catholics and catholics suspect protestants is because if someone is of one of those faiths then that person is likely to also have opposing political sympathies. Really, it's not like it was before religious freedoms were introduced. Of all Christian denominations in the UK, the catholics claim the most adherents, about 4,000,000, more than the Anglican church itself and only 18% of people in the UK profess any observant religious affiliation at all. It really is down to national sympathies at this time.

And yet, don't the Catholics hate the Protestants as Protestants, and vice versa? Old hatreds die hard ... and slowly.
The conflict shouldn't be religious at this point, but I suspect it still is, at least in part ... perhaps as an outcome of momentum as much as anything.

 

[2322]

That really pisses me off. We can't get good cheese here in the US as the FDA demands that all imported cheeses be pasteurized and that just ruins their flavor. If I want good cheese I have to go there or to another country to get it.

I love roast lamb with rosemary and mint jelly but don't care much for beef unless it's in a hamburger or barbecue. Once every ten years or so I'll actually order a steak in a restaurant but otherwise, meh.

The smoked salmon is excellent.

Many meals I've had in the UK have been decent. It's the pub grub and organ meat stuff I can't stomach. No haggis for me. Been there, done that, never again.

You will find our lamb and beef in the finest Michelin starred restaurants of Paris.

You will see Scottish smoked salmon as a delicacy around the world.

If you have never had a Hereford or Angus Rib joint with fresh veg, roasties, rich gravy, horseradish etc with a couple of pints of Pedigree/London Pride/Adnams, then you haven't lived.

Try some real Cheddar, Stilton, Mrs. Appleby's lancashire, a British Cox and another couple of pints.

If you stay in mediocre hotels in London and elsewhere, you will get shit.

The old one about our food is as silly as saying that MacDonalds is American haute cuisine. I am a serious foodie and trust me, the UK has some excellent local ingredients, you just need to know what to do with them.

 

[snoozan]

That really pisses me off. We can't get good cheese here in the US as the FDA demands that all imported cheeses be pasteurized and that just ruins their flavor. If I want good cheese I have to go there or to another country to get it.

Are you telling me that Velveeta and Cheez Whiz aren't good enough for you. Eh? Eh? :biggrin1::biggrin1:

 

[southwest]

OMFG!!!!

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

Tooooo funny sir!! :tongue:

Why thank you :beerchug:

 

[Principessa]

Are you telling me that Velveeta and Cheez Whiz aren't good enough for you. Eh? Eh? :biggrin1::biggrin1:

I hate Velveeta but I do love my Whiz! As far as I'm concerned it's the only acceptable cheese on a cheese steak other than provolone.

 

[dong20]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalipygian

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.

Actually the Queen/Governer General dismissed Gough Whitlam, the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975.

Actually you misquoted Kalipygian I was me that said that and it is correct . The exercise of Royal Prerogative in that way being one of those few exceptions. It's ironic that Fraser (whom Kerr 'appointed') was democratically elected by the Australian electorate in the ensuing election a month later.

 

[B_Swimming Lad]

The Queen does not need to use her political power. She is an icon not a politician.

 

[dong20]

I looked this stuff up before I posted it the first time because I didn't think "British" was an ethnicity. Turns out it's not typically considered an ethnicity, but English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish are, and those four groups together (North Irish anyway) constitute British as a nationality. Hope that clarifies that for rubi and dong20.

I'm quite clear on the distinction between British and English, Welsh, Scotish and Irish in terms of ethnicity and nationality. I always have been.

I'm not at all convinced however, that one can accurately define any of the last four as ethnic groups, certainly not the English for reasons I have already stated. Of course ethnicity is a fluid term so we're probably both right, and both wrong.

 

[frizzle]

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.

True, we were ahead of America on women's votes, but as said before New Zealand was way ahead of us and America had most men voting by the 1820's.

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

True, but I meant that patriotism was a part of nationalism.

The Queen does not need to use her political power. She is an icon not a politician.

Well actually, she does and she doesn't. She doesn't use any of her personal political beliefs in the limelight, but she's a very busy women with her international policies and duties, she's a very busy women.

What I didn't know was that she actually has a salary for it!

 

[Guy-jin]

I'm quite clear on the distinction between British and English, Welsh, Scotish and Irish in terms of ethnicity and nationality. I always have been.

I'm not at all convinced however, that one can accurately define any of the last four as ethnic groups, certainly not the English for reasons I have already stated. Of course ethnicity is a fluid term so we're probably both right, and both wrong.

Well, I got my answer from an encyclopedia and various web sites I looked up prior to posting it. Where'd you get yours?

I mean, you told me that "English" was the equivalent of "Texan". Are you backing off that stance or do you really think "English" is definitively a nationality and not an ethnicity? If that's your stance, do you correct everyone you come across who says that he or she is part "English" unless they were born in England?

Don't worry, I won't throw in a condescending smiley. :wink:

 

[B_Cravenator]

I guess I am proud to be a Brit. Never really thought about it before, but its a good place to be. :biggrin1:

 

[dong20]

Well, I got my answer from an encyclopedia and various web sites I looked up prior to posting it. Where'd you get yours?

Knowing my nation's history and living here most of my life. Also, travelling in around 70 other countries and having many varied discussions about how England (and Britain) is perceived has given me an added perspective. I also did a quick google, (just for fun) and found as many yea as nay viewpoints. When given such a consensus I tend to follow my judgment.

I mean, you told me that "English" was the equivalent of "Texan". Are you backing off that stance or do you really think "English" is definitively a nationality and not an ethnicity?

Yes, I did and I stand by it in terms of English [not] being a de jure enthnicity. I don't believe it is except by a narrow defintion. FWIW, you didn't qualify your definition when you made it, in my discussion with Sr Rubi I did, at length.

Certainly, English could be defined as an ethnicty on the basis of country of birth, but that's only one of numerous criteria by which 'ethnicity' is commonly defined. For me, given the fact that someone born here can be 'English' in passport terms only, it's simply not enough, something more is needed. In the same way a person born in Texas is not necessarily American.

If that's your stance, do you correct everyone you come across who says that he or she is part "English" unless they were born in England?

Don't be facetious. Not believing English is an enthnic grouping other than one of nationality doesn't preclude someone being part English, much as someone could be part French, for example.

In this there is no real right or wrong, merely opinion. There's no necessity for us to agree, I'm not trying to persuade you, merely expressing my view. And, on this I have said all I shall.

Don't worry, I won't throw in a condescending smiley. :wink:

Feel free. Water off a duck's back.

 

[2322]

The Queen does not need to use her political power. She is an icon not a politician.

She has and does. She has responsibilities within the constitutional system which makes those responsibilities political. Her role, ideally, is apolitical; above the fray so that when the volatility of the parliamentary system causes government to fail, she steps in to right the ship.

Consider this. Elizabeth has been at the head of government for 55 years. She has met and held private discussions with nearly every head of state who matters, she holds private audiences every week with every Prime Minister since Churchill and she is free to ask or tell them any thing she wants and they have to respond. It's not like they can lie either. She is privy to every law passed, every act of parliament, every state secret in the UK. She has seen the entire political landscape of her nations change, ministers rise and fall, and all the while she knows it all. That makes her, forgetting for the moment the natural power of her position, exceptionally powerful. We cannot be certain of HM's political sympathies as only perhaps her family and the prime ministers who have served her know for certain, but she's suspected to lean a bit to the left.

The UK is exceptionally fortunate to have a monarch who wields that power so conservatively and conscientiously. This is one of the benefits (and liabilities) of monarchy. You get whomever comes out of a Regina's vagina. That infant could grow to use the power given him or her wisely or abuse it. It's a lottery.