 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No such thing as British...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST,in room 325 of the Motel 6 Date: 21 Apr 01 - 12:23 PM It's quite the laugh seeing Alex/Mousethief commenting on colorblind society, fighting prejudice, etc. After all, this is a guy who, in the first sentence of his profile in the Mudcat Resources, stresses that he is a "white male." As if we couldn't tell from the picture right above the statement
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST,jayohjo in Russia Date: 21 Apr 01 - 06:35 AM gaaaah! Why did it all come out like that? Sorreee! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST,jayohjo in Russia Date: 21 Apr 01 - 06:34 AM My two penn'orth... As someone who's away from her 'own land' (dispute as you will) and working as an English assistant (that's the language, not the nationality) it's been made even more obvious to me that it's important to be careful about what words you use (re British-English), ie the students and teachers find it difficult to distinguish between the concepts of British and English, no matter how much I explain it. As for a 'British race' - I'd agree that I've always understood 'race' to be a biological rather than sociological term, to take the two extremes. If this is the definition of race, then therefore there can be no such thing as a British race, and much as I hate to say it I'll have to agree with Robin Cook (eek!). However, there are undeniably similarities between people (whether black, white, brown, green, purple etc) who have been brought up in or have spent a long time in the United Kingdom. With regard to first- and second-generation immigrants, for example, this must be due to socialization into a particular society or social group, rather than any inherent characteristics. Example of socialization rather than inherent biological differences - when I first arrived in Russia, all the Russian students told me that I didn't look Russian at all, and this wasn't just due to my clothes but that they could see it in my face. However, I bought a big Russian coat and boots, got used to the procedures of where I was living, went about looking stroppy, and I'm now told that I look very Russian. Socialization, to a very minor extent. So in my opinion (though this may be due to having studied Sociology and Psychology rather than Biology and Anthropology) there are a number of characteristics which can be found in many of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. However, this does not mean that they are biologically inherent; if we had all been born in, say, Russia, we (though possibly having similar personal characters, but that's a different debate) would probably all behave a bit differently. Therefore, the question of whether a British race exists depends solely on whether you accept the term as solely biological, or as having other interpretations. I see it as biological, and therefore consider that a 'British race' cannot exist. However, this doesn't mean that I don't miss Marmite, Eastenders, football, and people in shops occasionally smiling! ;) Jayohjo in Russia XXX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 20 Apr 01 - 09:15 PM I've managed to avoid posting to this thread so far, though I've been reading it with interest. However, I am half English, and as a consequence object very strongly to remarks like "Bloody Brits". Cait doesn't make it clear where she is from, but it would appear that it was somewhere where courtesy was not, while she was growing up, considered very important. Perhaps she is American, in which case she should understand that, if there is a nationality more unpopular in the world than "The Brits", it is "The Yanks". I am not aware of a nation on earth which has not behaved badly toward others when it had the chance, nor of any "race" which does not have racist attitudes. These things are built in, and it is our duty as human beings to accept that, and ensure as best we can that we behave decently towards each other, no matter what prejudices we may inherit. Malcolm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 20 Apr 01 - 07:12 PM Keith, I don't think I'm at risk in this community of being labelled pro-American, but I think I can safely question the tone of your post alleging American cynicism re those WW1 destoyers. Someone else cleared up the facts, but what perplexes me is an assumption often encountered here in Britain that America was bound to come to our aid. There's nothing wrong with arguing that America should have got in sooner, but I don't see that Britain had any entitlement to support. It was Britain that got itself into the scrap, it was Britain that chose to delay going in until Germany had got itself well and truly into fighting trim, and it was Britain that did next to nothing to prepare itself for the conflict. As for Dave, I despair. Having tied himself in knots on the race thing, he keeps trying to turn it back on Cook's stupidity, as though slagging a politician will somehow make the peculiar line he is taking seem OK. The trouble is, that there was not a word of stupidity in anything Cook said. He did not say we British don't exist, so he is not in any sort of conflict with the census form, nor in conflict with anyone here, except Dave. He just said we are a collection of races, which we patently are. As far as I have seen, his speech seems to have been generally well received. |
|
Subject: no scientific basis for the concept of race... From: cait Date: 20 Apr 01 - 06:05 PM we are separated from mice by about 200 genomes, with about twice as many as amoebae...and from each other by none. when i say 'bloody brits', i generally mean the english, of course, the most politically incorrect group of 'civilized' (not to say 'civil') members of the human race on the planet. who else invented all those clever ethnic epithets? so there. *caiti* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 01 - 03:00 PM Forgive me coming into the discussion in the 11th hour. What *I* object to is the notion that discarding the word "race" and taking "racial" questions off our censuses (censi?) will somehow make racism -- that is, prejudice against persons of differing ethnic or national or bloodline* backgrounds from one's self -- go away. It won't. We shall have to work harder than that. Creating a "color-blind" society will just be creating a society officially blind to the discrimination within it. *well, you take away "race" and I need something else to use. Someone whose ancestors are (say) all Eskimos is different in some way -- which could use an adjective -- than someone whose ancestors are all from Western Europe. And people do, and have, and will continue to, discriminate against persons on this sort of basis, which is neither ethnic nor national, as both of these persons may be Americans of rather white-bread upbringing with no particular ethnic heritage other than "middle American" in their upbringing. Now because somebody WILL misunderstand me, let me say quite explicitly that I think all these forms of discrimination and prejudice are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:41 PM class of persons etc with some common feature (the race of poets, dandies etc)
Well that's a definition of race which is quite fun, but doesn't bear much relationship to the other definitions, which aren't. Race of folk-singers, race of darts-players, race of men or race of women...Feels a bit strange really.
But the core of the sickness is that preposterous notion of the three great races of humanity, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, which is and always has been absolute balderdash. Basically it's on a par with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and was promulgated by pseudo-scientists with very much the same kind of mind-set as the people who concocted that evil document. You'll still find it in dictionaries, the same way you'll find definitions of the expression "to jew down" and so forth. Good dictionaries have to include all the meanings which a word has been loaded with at various times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Kim C Date: 20 Apr 01 - 01:19 PM Maybe Robin Cook is the antichrist? Nobody mentioned him on that thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Don Firth Date: 20 Apr 01 - 01:15 PM I have some pretty vivid recollections of World War II. I was ten years old when Pearl Harbor was atacked, but I remember before that the Lend-Lease programs and the "Bundles for Britain" campaigns. Most Americans were anything but indifferent to what was going on in Europe, particularly England (Britain?). A fact or two. Here is a detailed description of the battle of the North Atlantic and the part American destroyers took in it, even before the U. S. officially went to war. It's long, but it makes pretty interesting reading (about halfway down, the sinking of theReuben James is mentioned). There are some pretty good links posted here on the idea of race. As far as I am concerned, the sooner that divisive concept in all its permutations gets flushed down the toilet, the better off the whole world will be. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: JudeL Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:56 AM To the guest who didn't identify themself, who said there appeared to be a xenophobic response to calling oneself English - but not to identifying oneself as Welsh or Scotish. I would disagree with that, I don't think that people object to being called English if that is what they are, but I do think they ( and quite reasonably) object if the term English is misused to describe someone from Scotland, Ireland or Wales. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Gary T Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:54 AM Having said this I want to make clear, what I'm sure Gary T recognises, that I intend my comments as part of an academic discussion not a personal feud. Gary and I clearly agree on the most crucial issue here, that racism is abhorrent. Correct on all counts. Regards, Gary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Brian Hoskin Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:45 AM Sorry Dave, I was writing my contribution whilst you were posting yours. Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Brian Hoskin Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:43 AM Gary, Certainly the notion of 'race' as a biological concept has not been entirely abandoned (neither has slavery, as we have recently seen), but it has been discredited. I maintain my assertion that biological notions of 'race' have generally been used to offer pseudo-scientific justifications for social and political constructions. I have not put 'the cart before the horse', the concept of 'race' as a classificatory system stemmed from racist society, not the other way around. Thanks for the link to the interesting and informative website. For the current view of the American Anthropological Association click here to view a statement on the matter published on their website. Having said this I want to make clear, what I'm sure Gary T recognises, that I intend my comments as part of an academic discussion not a personal feud. Gary and I clearly agree on the most crucial issue here, that racism is abhorrent. Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:43 AM I can see exactly where Gary is coming from and if I majored in biology I would probably find the same definition. As my studies were more inclined to English and Economics I think I could find a different definition. No Economics books to hand, just a plain dictionary. Race n. group of persons or animals or plants connected by common descent, posterity of (person); house, family, tribe, or nation regarded as common stock. (The Caucasian race); genus or species or breed or variety of animals or plants, any great division of living creatures (the human race); descent, kindred,; class of persons etc with some common feature (the race of poets, dandies etc) That is the full definition available to me at the moment. I could have just picked out the 'connected by posterity', 'kindred', 'race of poets' and so on but I did not want to make the same mistake and latch on to just one definition. As you can see both Gary and Brian are right. Let us just say that race is a very large word with multiple meanings. Can I try to steer this back on course once again by saying the thread, started by me, was about a comment made by a polititian. Forget what race means. Forget the semantics of it all. Go right to the start of the thread and read it carefuly. Robin Cook said "The British are not a race". I disagree. Simple. Look at the above definition. They may not be a race in biological or global terms but they are a race belonging to the same house or tribe. What is more the Government itself has just sent out a form to every household in Britain giving "British" as an answer to the question about cultural or ethnic, and by the same definition, racial, background. Who do we believe? The home office (Census) or the foreign office (Robin Cook). Well, you know what us British say. Never trust a foreigner;-) Cheers Dave the Gnome. Trying to keep my thread on course but fighting a loosing battle..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Penny S. Date: 20 Apr 01 - 11:00 AM Britain is a geographical term, not one derived from its inhabitants. Yes, it is related to the Pretani, and also to the Cruithne (sp?) in the other Celtic pronounciation, which shows its relationship to the Latin creta, chalk, as seen in the Cretaceous Period of geological time. It refers, apparently, to the White Cliffs of Dover as seen from the White Cliffs of Boulogne. I wonder if it originally only applied to the South East. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Gary T Date: 20 Apr 01 - 10:38 AM Here you go: race Biology. an interbreeding subgroup of a species whose individuals are geographically, physiologically, or chromosomally distinct from other members of the species. The above is what I had in mind (I was a biology major). I did not study anthropology, but the following is perhaps more germane to the topic at hand. Anthropology. 1. a geographical variation in the human population, identified by a range of genetic characteristics such as hair and skin color, eye color and shape, facial features, body build, and blood group; now a disputed term that is not regarded as technically precise. 2. any of three such population groups into which humans have traditionally been classified; i.e., Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. I note that it is now a disputed term; it is not, however, an abandoned term. More discussion of the term, addressing both of our perspectives, can be found at this site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Brian Hoskin Date: 20 Apr 01 - 10:04 AM Gary, Clearly our understandings of the concept of 'race' are somewhat different. Your critique of my opinions is largely based on your assertion that 'race' is a biological classification, as I don't have a biology textbook handy perhaps you could give me your scientific definition of 'race'. Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Gary T Date: 20 Apr 01 - 09:54 AM Brian, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and while it is socially enlightened, it is scientifically incorrect.
'Race' is NOT a biological classification it is a political and social construction.
The notion of 'race' falsely assumes that humanity is divided into unchanging, natural types, that can be recognised by their physical features, which are transmitted 'through the blood'.
This false biological notion of race then allows for the ascribing of particular mental and moral characteristics to racial origin. This, in turn, allows for the establishment of hierarchical classification systems based on apparent racial origins - i.e. the superiority of the 'white race'.
This has, of course, provided a useful justification for the exertion of imperial and colonial power and all that goes with that from slavery and apartheid to ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Viewed in this way it is possible to see that 'racism' is not the product of the concept of 'race', but the very reason for its existence.
To underline this point it is useful for people to realise that there is considerably more genetic variation within apparently black or white 'races', as between them. I applaud your and McGrath's disdain of racism, and I understand the feeling that there is no social merit to the concept of race. I just wish you didn't express this by denying that race exists as a biological category, because in fact it does exist. It may not be of much use to the average Joe, but it is useful to biologists. The fact that some misuse the concept of race does not negate its value in certain contexts, nor mean it is evil or wrong. One could just as well (and just as stupidly) base moral and character judgments on hair color or height or any other chosen physical characteristic. It's not the categorizing of physical characteristics that's the problem, but rather tying those characteristics in with other values. Race is inherently neutral and benign, racism is a scourge of humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Apr 01 - 09:39 AM Very well put, Brian. Race is not a biological classification. In terms of what I was trying to get across this is exactly it. The British are a true 'race' in these terms - ie a political and social construction. I wish I had thought of putting it that way earlier and saved a lot of discussion! As Mr Cook himself put it - "a gathering of countless different 'races'" I think he is mixing the meanings of race and biological or perhaps geographic background. Do you think we can drop a note to his spin doctors and point out the error of their ways? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Brian Hoskin Date: 20 Apr 01 - 09:07 AM I'm with McGrath on this one. 'Race' is NOT a biological classification it is a political and social construction. The notion of 'race' falsely assumes that humanity is divided into unchanging, natural types, that can be recognised by their physical features, which are transmitted 'through the blood'. This false biological notion of race then allows for the ascribing of particular mental and moral characteristics to racial origin. This, in turn, allows for the establishment of hierarchical classification systems based on apparent racial origins - i.e. the superiority of the 'white race'. This has, of course, provided a useful justification for the exertion of imperial and colonial power and all that goes with that from slavery and apartheid to ethnic cleansing and genocide. Viewed in this way it is possible to see that 'racism' is not the product of the concept of 'race', but the very reason for its existence. To underline this point it is useful for people to realise that there is considerably more genetic variation within apparently black or white 'races', as between them. If anyone would like a reading list on this that goes beyond a dictionary definition I would be happy to supply one. Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Les from Hull Date: 20 Apr 01 - 08:18 AM Mr Red - Berwick upon Tweed has been at peace with Russia since 1966 (a Soviet goodwill visit). Stop trying to dig up old quarrels. **BG** Les |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Les from Hull Date: 20 Apr 01 - 08:05 AM About those lend-lease destroyers. The way I understand it was that this was something concocted by Churchill, without advice from the Admiralty. Roosevelt had readily agreed to transfer 50 old destroyers (dating from about 1919) to the RN and RCN. There was some reticence generally in the USA about getting involved in another European war (as it was seen at the time), but not on the part of their President. Unfortunately, Chuchill did not understand that mothballed antique fleet destroyers do not make good long-range convoy escorts. Torpedo tubes are not wanted here, neither is speed. What is needed is endurance, good sea-keeping qualities and anti-submarine weapons, which is what these boats did not have. And it took a long time to convert them, not necessarily the fault of the USA. Les |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Apr 01 - 04:39 AM Thanks all for an excelent debate - didn't check last night so it was nice to see all the overnight (GMT that is, or should I now say BST) respose. In summary of my own opinions can I first re-iterate that my original posting is not about racism, or racial bigotry for the more pedantic. It is about a polititian making a stupid comment. If there is no such thing as British why has the self same government (albeit a different department) allowed the check box "British" on the national census form? There have been many points well made here. We are one world. We are one race. It is however nice to have a background, a history and a culture to relate to. Differences in these things are what makes it more interesting to travel. Provided that we never ever ever believe that one culture is better or worse than another, just different, we should enjoy those differences. I believe that Britain exists. It is a melting pot for many old and many new races. It will accept many other cultures and adapt its own to accomodate them. It is this mixture that makes Britain and makes me, a child of that melting pot myself, proud to be British. Polititians think they know better than anyone else and actualy believe that they have the right to rule the lives of millions of people. No one who is mentaly unstable enough to believe that has the right to deny that history, culture and attitude for the sake of winning a few points off another polititian who is equaly barmy! Back to my original point. Forget the racist issues. Forget the semantics. Forget which party said what. Polititians should just keep their mouths shut. We have to have them, apparantly, why should we be forced to listen to their insane drivel as well? Love to all (even the Klingons I suppose...) Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: mousethief Date: 20 Apr 01 - 04:35 AM the three-legged race is native to the Isle of Man, I believe. LOL! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Apr 01 - 03:54 AM Artbrooks, in 1940 the US government did not believe that Britain would still exist as a nation by 1941. Making them wait while they "modernised" the vessels was a cynical ploy. Britain was losing the war against the U Boat . The whole might of the Luftwaffe was directed at our airfields (my parents were in the RAF at this time) and again we seemed to be losing. The whole of Europe had fallen. An invasion fleet was being formed in the Channel ports. Britain asked for help , and none there came. By 1941 the crises had passed but the cost to Britain was grievous. Our cities in ruins and thousands of sailors and airmen dead. Many thousand ordiary families wiped out in the Blitz. Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Steve Parkes Date: 20 Apr 01 - 03:54 AM The idea of "race" is a bit of a red herring--it's differences in culture that people get worked up about. How do you eat your Cadbury's egg? people have been attacked for less! Steve P.S. Mousethief, the three-legged race is native to the Isle of Man, I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Terry K Date: 20 Apr 01 - 02:49 AM There are many rights and wrongs and many in-betweens. The only absolute I can claim in this thread is that it's only people who know BUGGER ALL about cricket that make facile and supercilious remarks about the English cricket team losing. We are currently rated third in the world (that's the WHOLE world incidentally), in real cricket and it's about time someone applauded our successes. I'm fed up with reading inanely smug comments which clearly come from within a protective veil of ignorance. Oh and perhaps a little more on-topic - there really are only three races. Note that Caucasian not only includes we "British" but also includes (inter alia) the whole of the Indian sub-continent, North America and all the Arab nations. The "race card" is however played by all sides all the time and is officially allowed to continue via the Race Relations Board. There was a case recently where some Scottish person claimed that he had been racially discriminated against by the English. I recall it was something about the Scottish national diet being so bad - apparently some survey implied they like everything to be "20% fat free". Cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: artbrooks Date: 19 Apr 01 - 08:54 PM Keith A: yes, you are correct. The 50 Towne class destroyers that were transferred to the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy by the Lend Lease Agreement of September 1940 required modernization and did not actually enter active service until 1941. My error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST,may I meld - or is it mingle ? Date: 19 Apr 01 - 08:24 PM Think the ancient Britons simply changed clothes learned a bit o Saxon and stayed put. Yup some did retreat into the hinter lands but only if they did not want to 'mingle?' Oh those eccentric Britons how could they not be what I wanted them to be? Well the Romans who had married there and started families did not all leave, why would they? The rain and the Ale and of course Cricket. It was such fun, and besides it they did not have to Bow to the referee. Angles and Saxons - omg - well King Arthur was eating some honey and drinking his revolutionary Nonneee Nohhhh Whey one day and figured out if he really wanted to take over the world he need some good iron workers so he set a trap in the form of the gorgeous Gwendolynn of Gwennyyyddd. Any way after she went on her rowboat all the way to Norway they thought her crazy and sent her for some serious therapy in far Germany with Herr Frued. There the good Doctor could find nothing wrong and let her go. By this time she had forgotten what she was to do and simply married a local blacksmith called Fred. Now Fred yearly made a trip into the country to his mother and it was there that Gwyn decided she wanted to live. So Fred and Gwynn moved back to thier home land, Angliasaxland. Soon ther were little Gwynns and Freds all over the place, anyway many years later there was a big fight with King Grotty the Rotten, whereupon the people decided to leave. After consulting the wise ones it was decided they would seek Gwynn home land where there were lots of beautifull babes. And so on one very wet and rainy morning in the year of the five legged pig there arrived a bedraggled and hungry bunch of sea sore traders to the coast of Broadlands where they were quickly dried out and fed and hugged nearly to death by the locals who after resting their guests and feeding them copious butties and hog burgers commenced a story contest. After many years of butties and stories they all lived happy and the land became Anglia. Meanwhile King Brick the Happy was pointing his Barn and saw in the distance a fellow riding a broom approach his castle, 'I say' cried the King ' wot you think you are doing riding that thing in to my kingdom without and indicator lights?' To which the traveller replied 'Why good King I am Oggy of Anglia and my broom is malfunctioning I do apologise and offer a reward for your kind hospitality of this fair Damsel' which he quickly produced from his cloak. 'Jolly good' said the King taking the Damsel and setting her to tend his large garden 'Next time do be carefull at borders with your Broom'
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Mr Red Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:56 PM Where does all this leave Berwick on Tweed? the Union was originally declared between England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Berwick on Tweed (which was yet to decide if it was in England or Scotland). Wasn't the Crimean war declared thereafter? after Berwick had chosen, peace was declared in the name of the Union which did not name Berwick. so hostilities are still raging between Russia and Berwick. Oh the joys of being BRITISH or was my brother-in-law wrong on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: mousethief Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:53 PM 3-legged is my favorite. Love to see those husband-wife teams do it, especially. Shows what kind of teamwork they really have going for them. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:51 PM Egg and spoon, sack, 100 metres, relay...Now those are real races. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:38 PM Artbrooks, in1940 German U boats were drowning hundreds of British sailors every day. Churchill said it was the only thing that frightened him in WW2. We asked to loan old US WW1 mothballed destroyers to help protect the convoys. The US goverment refused. Sorry everyone else but he did ask. Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Jenny the T Date: 19 Apr 01 - 06:00 PM This discussion is moving in all kinds of directions, but I'll give it a go: "British" (as in "British Isles") is the adjectival form of the name "Briton." The Britons, who controlled the big island prior to the Saxon invasion (Hengist and Horsa and all that), were a collection of tribes with shifting alliances who constantly warred among themselves. Although they succeeded in having their name stick to the locale, they were by no means the original inhabitants, as their ancestors were themselves invaders, chasing out the even earlier Bronze Age inhabitants. When the Saxons came into the picture--first as mercenary allies of one of the minor tribal kingdoms, then as colonists, then as conquerors--the Britons either assimilated into Saxon ways or retreated into defensible wild places. It's my understanding that Wales and Cornwall contained the last concentrations of Britons, and that the people native to these regions are the closes thing to "original" Brits. But so what? There ain't no sucha thing as a "racially pure" bloodline. There have been studies showing that the entire human race can be genetically traced to a single ancestor who lived around 4,000 years ago. Everyone's related, you know? That's all for me. My brain is now empty (except for the voices, of course) J-t-T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 01 - 05:53 PM When I took a cultural anthropology class many, many years ago I believe "race" was divided into three categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.
Precisely - and it was total nonsense, based on a pseudo-scientific theory invented by racists, and promulgated by racists.
Any suggestion that there is such a thing as a British "race", which is to be distinguished from a British nationality is, in effect saying that there are some people who have British nationality, but who are not British by race. And that is rubbish and it is racist rubbish. And there are people who think and say that kind of thing. I doubt very much if any of the people who have contributed to this thread actually believe in that sort of stuff.
You don't have to be "a race" in order to have a common loyalty and identity. Obviously there are a lot of people for whom the sense of being British is enormously important. But being British doesn't mean belonging to a British race, any more than being Catholic means you belong to a Catholic race, or being a Mudcatter means belonging to a Mudcat race.
As for Ferengi - they should leave the racism to the hew-mons. There's no profit in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: mousethief Date: 19 Apr 01 - 05:47 PM "Britain" is the name of an island. Seems like a simple concept to me. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Snuffy Date: 19 Apr 01 - 05:32 PM There is no such thing as the British race, but there is a British nation, and it's got nothing to do with bloodlines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST,Oh what a silly thing to say! Date: 19 Apr 01 - 05:01 PM The origin of the name Britian ain't gonna answer the question but it explains to me at least what it is all about. The word began as 'Pritani' - which I am certain some kind scholar of Cornish, Welsh or Britanish would further explain. The point is that people from the region including Ireland were so described long ever before any political union was formed. So being British is not something one chooses, rather it is how others may see one. Dave the Gnome displays the peculiarity of a typical inhabitant, both his taste for exotic foods and ability to navigate the minefield of local national twaddle points. In terms of what realy counts 'The Triple Crown' who would or could not be excited when their side wins? But then in the Islands you'll quickly notice there is no guarantee that for example in Ireland everyone supports Ireland and the same for Wales etc. It seems to be a local habit to pick a side one likes early on and stick to that till win or loose the season ends. I used support an unlikely side since if I bet early on the odds were great and if they won, a Fiver bet would get me 100 quid. A race or not a race, naw I don't buy that one! The more remote places maybe, but as one approaches the cities the diversity increases so that in the end there is no easy rule. Every part of the world seems to have left it's mark there. Chip butties and Newcastle Brown Ale, why? Well you cruch the butties and quaff the ale, strange mystical auras then descend from Britania ( really is Bo Delicious the ancient liberator ) which makes one laugh untill subdued with copious douses of water. On the other hand one can observe the bug on the bottom right leg of the Wicket off side Fielder for hours at a time while sipping small drips of real Limade, this is an art and takes a long time to cultivate. I never did manage to get Cricket off that well so I am as confused as the next person. I do know that if all the Batsmen from the same team are LBW then that side has nearly lost the match. Note LBW means Leg Before Wicket. This sin is worse in terms of the peace of the Nation than driving the wrong way around a roundabout. This is but the surface of a very complicated matter for when one veers north of the Border into Caber country everything changes - here we are throwing tree trunks around, which is a sport - ahem If that's not enough confusion theres also Hurling and Shinti which is almost impossible to describe. One's genetic code, for me this is extremely tiresome since I have a little of all but not enough of any to actualy be anything! Can I be me please? Thank You. One of the weirdest things about ariving in Blighty is the Tea at travel plazas, it is terrible! I once bought a guest a cup having spent some time praising Tea on the Trip, this was before I clued up. There I was with my two Paper Cups of this horrid stuff feeling so foolish and embarrased! even British Rail cups would've saved my dented pride. They cost me 2 pound as well. Now if you think that a change of venue is going to help think again - on my next trip I headed for Shannon thinking aha - land in Ireland and things must get better, wrong. The only difference was I got a real Cup like the good old BR cups. For me the islands will always be Britian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Apr 01 - 04:26 PM 1 "The British and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." If Kennedy said that, Bob, he was quoting George Bernard Shaw. Firecat and Maggie, you could start by reading what Cook said (as set out in IanC's post). Where is there any suggestion that you can't be British? Dave, I know you said you didn't want an argument about semantics, but that's what you're going to get if you claim Cook's remarks were "racist." You seem to think it's possible to be "racist" in good ways as well as bad, but I've never heard the term used that way. Surely racism means disciminating by race, and how can that be good? Racism is what that Tory MP (Townend) was flirting with, and it's a million miles from anything in Cook's speech. We'll have to see what, if anything, William Hague does about Townend, Forth and some other MP who have refused to sign the cross=party pledge to keep the race card out of the election cmpaigning. Spaw, part of the diffiuclty with "British" arises from historical anomalies - not least that in the days of our former glorious empire and of the British Commonwealth that followed it, people in the British dominions and colonies were deemed British. (There was a disgusting phase in the none-too-distant phase, when those so-called British people could emigrate freely to Britain, provided only that they were not black!) So that was one source of confusion. Another is that there is no "Britain" (or even "Great Britain") in international law. And England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are formally recognised only by some sports authorities etc. Our nation, as recognised by the UN, is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (ie England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. So strictly speaking we are all United Kingdomers, or would be if it wasn't such a mouthful. Many Aussie, Kiwi etc object to being called British these days, and rightly so. And some who are British object to the term Brit, partly because it is sometimes used derogatively by, for instance, Irish people who (usually with good reason) are hostile to the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 01 - 04:06 PM Ooops. Silly me, the question was about how the Brits had to drag the US into the SECOND WW. Perhaps someone else with more historical knowledge can field this one. The last time I got involved in one of these, I made an ass of myself and have regretted it ever since. A little historical knowledge is a dangerous thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 01 - 03:56 PM From the Lusitania ( sp ? ) after the Brits sank it covertly with the help of the US government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: artbrooks Date: 19 Apr 01 - 03:43 PM Keith A: where DID you think those WWI destroyers came from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: GUEST Date: 19 Apr 01 - 03:11 PM dave; like you I'm a mongrel, and proud to be so, though strangely others sometimes take offence at my definition of myself! It seems to be OK to identify yourself as Scottish or Welsh but somehow xenophobic (sp. Dave) to use the term English; the whole issue is a very contentious one. If the 'origins of mankind' theories are true then surely the only indigenous people were those in the place mankind moved out from: Africa? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 01 - 02:21 PM I didn't start the thread creep, so don't call me the creep of this thread, but... I find it odd, and very disturbing, that "race" is so easily used to separate us when we are all of the human race. I am pround of my heritage and the culture which defines it. However, I deplore the fact that those in power, the rich, if you will, use these wonderful diversities to subjugate the poor. The poorest of the world suffer the most. Child slavery, religeous violence, etcetera, ad infinitum. It's not a question of "race". It's all about power... it's all about money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Clinton Hammond Date: 19 Apr 01 - 02:16 PM *sigh* When are we gonna start thinking globally... and stop pissing out our meaningless little borders and point fingers and saying "we're right and you're wrong"... Nations are for shit... and as I've said before, there is only 1 race of upright walking, tool using, environment wrecking, homonid on the planet right now (unless we can prove that bigfoot exists, and isn't just Elvis in a furry suit)... The term 'racist' is wrong... And probably only caught on because it's easier to say than ethnist... It's gotta be a global community if we're gonna stand half a chance at surviving long enought to get off this rock... And it's gotta be a global community headed by NOT A SINGLE ONE of the current power structures! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Songster Bob Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:56 PM "The British and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." -- John F. Kennedy (at least he's the one I've seen credited with that witticism). Or perhaps it was "England and America ..." since not all Brits speak English as a first language (Cornwall comes to mind). The point about "British" not being a race, even if somewhat disengenuous when coming from a politician's mouth, is nonetheless a valid point. Similarly, "American" doesn't mean WASP, or even US citizen/resident, since both Mexico and Canada are part of the North American continent, and citizens of both are bona fide "Americans," no matter their culture, nationality, color (or "colour," for those of the Brit persuasion), or religion. Even if the original intent of the Conservative Party spokesman was to decry the tendency toward Europeanization of the British economy, Mr. Cook's response of "'British' is not a racial designation" is accurate, if not actually a response to the original point. Yes, Cook's playing the "race card," but part of the underlying understanding of some of the opposition is that preserving "Britishness" means turning away immigrants of other colors, so the "race card" was already in play, if not actually on the table. Does any of this make sense? I mean, my explanation, not the political situation; it, by definition, does not make sense -- dollars, but not sense. Whatever, this is the way I see it. As far as races go, I remember a rhetorical question from a class I took in Black Studies (and a very interesting class it was). The question was "Is any culture which has 'races' inherently racist?" Now THERE's food for thought. Bob C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Ringer Date: 19 Apr 01 - 01:10 PM I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but wasn't William Hague's original comment about Britain becoming a foreign land if Labour got a second term said in the context of Labour's attitude to Europe? I.e. not in the context of race or immigration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: JudeL Date: 19 Apr 01 - 12:49 PM Catspaw: According to my passport my contry of origin is Wales and my nationality is British,I don't see a problem or a contradiction in being both Welsh and British, as each in their context is correct. Mr Red: last time I looked in an atlas geographically Ireland is part of the British Isles, politically that's a whole different question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No such thing as British... From: Les from Hull Date: 19 Apr 01 - 12:45 PM To further support Dave the Gnome's explanation, the main problem comes from people saying English when they mean British, which is common from people from the USA. Most people who are Welsh or Scottish don't mind being called British but don't want to be called English - 'cos they're not. I suppose the equivalent of British people calling everyone in the USA 'Yank', as some of my fellow-countrypersons are wont to do. I don't even like to use the term American to refer to citizens of the USA are that precludes other people on and adjacent to Senor Vespucci's continent! Les |