THERE'LL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND
StGeorge2England
While there's a country lane.
Wherever there's a cottage small
Beside a field of grain
There'll always be an England
While there's a busy street.
Wherever there's a turning wheel
A million marching feet.
Red, white and blue
What does it mean to you?
Surely you're proud
Shout it loud
Britons awake!
The Empire too
We can depend on you.
Freedom remains
These are the chains
Nothing can break.
There'll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.
StGeorge2England
StGeorge2England
StGeorge2England
connochies
StGeorge2England <stgeorge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010121020605...@ng-mm1.aol.com...
And the point of posting this to a Scottish ng is? Apart from proving that
Scotland is not the only country with crap songs of course.
Allan
>
>
>
Jock Watson
year? There'll always be an Engand...Aye, unfortunately (Chuckle)! I agree
with Allan though, what's the point of posting this not once, but 4 times to
a Scottish NG? How old is the poster? He sounds like a wee bairn to do
this so often. As for St George...well, at least we have an Apostle as Our
Patron Saint!
:)
Jock.
:)
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:94e6f1$1oq$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jock Watson
ought to know this is a Red St George's cross on a white background, there
is NO blue in it.
"StGeorge2England" <stgeorge...@aol.com> spouted nonsense in his
message news:20010121023515...@ng-mm1.aol.com...
> There'll always be an England,
> While there's a country lane.
> Wherever there's a cottage small
> Beside a field of grain
> There'll always be an England
> While there's a busy street.
> Wherever there's a turning wheel
> A million marching feet.
> Red, white and blue
> What does it mean to you?
It means absolutely nothing to me i'm afraid for the reason I gave above,
there is NO blue in the cross of St George. I know this & i'm not English.
> Surely you're proud
> Shout it loud
> Britons awake!
> The Empire too
> We can depend on you.
> Freedom remains
> These are the chains
> Nothing can break.
You can depend on "the Empire"? What Empire, Great Britain (inc Scotland,
Wales & Ulster) hasn't had an empire in years now.
>
> There'll always be an England
> And England shall be free
> If England means as much to you
> As England means to me.
Jock
:)
connochies
Jock Watson <jwse...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:P_ya6.16224$pp2.1...@news3.cableinet.net...
> Where is the "Blue" in the England flag? Calling yourself St George you
> ought to know this is a Red St George's cross on a white background, there
> is NO blue in it.
>
> "StGeorge2England" <stgeorge...@aol.com> spouted nonsense in his
> message news:20010121023515...@ng-mm1.aol.com...
> > There'll always be an England,
> > While there's a country lane.
> > Wherever there's a cottage small
> > Beside a field of grain
> > There'll always be an England
> > While there's a busy street.
> > Wherever there's a turning wheel
> > A million marching feet.
> > Red, white and blue
> > What does it mean to you?
>
> It means absolutely nothing to me i'm afraid for the reason I gave above,
> there is NO blue in the cross of St George. I know this & i'm not
English.
Of course you are right Jock. Plus the line concerning "Britons awake"
shows also that the writer of the lyrics either did not understand, or did
not care, about the difference between England and Britain.
Colin Wilson
> Red, white and blue
(sic)
> Britons awake!
(sic)
> There'll always be an England
> And England shall be free
> If England means as much to you
> As England means to me.
Whoever composed that quite obviously didn't know what "England" means.
Colin Wilson.
w.wood
Engerland! Engerland Engerland!
See I'm getting the hang of this too, not to difficult to lower oneself to
the level of IQ of the prat that posts this crap on a Scottish ng
StGeorge2England <stgeorge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010121020605...@ng-mm1.aol.com...
Micheil
(StGeorge2England) wrote:
What a dreary, sickly sentiment. I can almost smell the lavender.
Who wrote this piece of shit anyway? Some elderly lady?
- měcheil
- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
St. George
> Wales & Ulster) hasn't had an empire in years now.
>
guy, secondly he's an obvious troll but you idiots keep replying to him,
thirdly, he is probably Trevor4England that spammed this NG a few weeks ago
(and got lot of replies!) Lastly in this very NG one of you guys kept going
on about 55 million English. There are 47 million of us, you are confusing
England with Britain, please don't do it again!
Alexander Maclennan
>> There'll always be an England And England shall be free If England
>> means as much to you As England means to me.
> What a dreary, sickly sentiment. I can almost smell the lavender.
> Who wrote this piece of shit anyway? Some elderly lady?
> - měcheil
It may be a crap song now but was pretty meaningful at the time it was new
and popular, when Hitler was rampaging about Europe and threatening invasion
here, when there was still an Empire fighting alongside us and the bombers
were battering this country most nights. But songs can be a rum go. The
Gerries were quite shocked when they found the Eighth Army had purloined
their treasured Lili Marlene.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
ejaycee@mahoose
"> mic...@arainnmhor.com (Micheil) wrote:
>
> >> There'll always be an England And England shall be free If England
> >> means as much to you As England means to me.
>
> > What a dreary, sickly sentiment. I can almost smell the lavender.
>
> > Who wrote this piece of shit anyway? Some elderly lady?
>
> > - měcheil
Well it wasny me Cherry B's or no Cherry B's
but what's wrong with sentiment -
or is it just English sentiment eh?
--
from Ejaycee
in the heart of Tasmania
>
Micheil
I know. In the Army we would sing a variant:
There'll always be an England
As long as Scotland's there.
junk...@my-deja.com
stgeorge...@aol.com (StGeorge2England) wrote:
Troll.
Got yourself a new month's AOL free trial I see.
Cheapskate.
--
'I'm playing all the right notes, just not necessarily in the right
order'
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Alexander Maclennan
>
> I know. In the Army we would sing a variant:
> There'll always be an England As long as Scotland's there.
I particularly liked the `translation` of the Egyptian national anthem
that we sang heartily in their cinemas. As the only piano player in our
mess I was able to ensure that the Ball at Kirriemuir was sung in a correct
version and that as Naomi Mitcheson realised, is the real Scottish National
Anthem.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Josiah Jenkins
Ain't that a bloody pain..
Wherever there's a shopping mall
And pouring, pissing rain.
There'll always be an *ngland
The place that they call home
Wherever there's a turning wheel
Red, white and blue
Just makes one grue.
Surely they're mad
(Isn't it sad !)
*ngland awake!
The Empire too
And Chessington Zoo
Freedom in chains
Nothing remains
No more to break.
There'll always be an *ngland
The *nglish flood we'll stem
If *ngland means as much to you
As *ngland means to them.
-- The Dragon !!!
(Stab me wi' that big pole wid ye' ?)
Allan-John Marsh
> > It means absolutely nothing to me i'm afraid for the reason I gave above,
> > there is NO blue in the cross of St George. I know this & i'm not
> English.
>
> Of course you are right Jock. Plus the line concerning "Britons awake"
> shows also that the writer of the lyrics either did not understand, or did
> not care, about the difference between England and Britain.
There mightn't be blue in the English flag, but are you trying to say
that if people are singing of England, then somehow they stop being
Britons? England's populated by Britons. Singing of England doesn't
change ones ethnicity.
Micheil
It was certainly the most popular song, with the possible exception of
My Husband's A Corporal and F*ck 'Em All.
Tom
StGeorge2England wrote:
> There'll always be an England,
> While there's a country lane.
> Wherever there's a cottage small
> Beside a field of grain
> There'll always be an England
> While there's a busy street.
> Wherever there's a turning wheel
> A million marching feet.
> Red, white and blue
> What does it mean to you?
> Surely you're proud
> Shout it loud
> Britons awake!
> The Empire too
> We can depend on you.
> Freedom remains
> These are the chains
> Nothing can break.
>
> There'll always be an England
as long as Scotlands there!!!
Alexander Maclennan
>> As the only piano player in our mess I was able to ensure that the
>> Ball at Kirriemuir was sung in a correct version and that as Naomi
>> Mitcheson realised, is the real Scottish National Anthem.
>> --
>> Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
> It was certainly the most popular song, with the possible exception of
> My Husband's A Corporal and F*ck 'Em All.
Old India hands had some fascinating repertory too. I recall one such who
sat on the floor and did a complete rendition of Doolally Sahib with
quartertones and very Indian head motions.
sandy
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
connochies
Allan-John Marsh <day....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3A6D01...@xtra.co.nz...
Of course they are Britons, but the point is the song is confusing. It
seems to be addressing Britons in general as if they are all English. Why
on earth use the appellation Britons if it means only English? Then again,
if it is meaning all Britons then why use England in the song title rather
than Britain. It is a prime example of some people's ignorance or arrogance
over these points. The English may be Britons but Britons are not
necessarily English.
Allan
CaledonC
> While there's a country lane.
Which being translated into realistic economic terms reflecting the
conveniently forgotten oil revenues and SE civil servants cost !
There'll always be an England
Whilst Scotland pays the bill !
Caledonian Col : Cale...@aol.com
Allan-John Marsh
> Of course they are Britons, but the point is the song is confusing. It
> seems to be addressing Britons in general as if they are all English.
I don't think so - it's singing about the English as though they are
Britons. It's another subjective viewpoint: if you read/listen to it
with some predisposition that the English think the whole of Britain is
England, then you'll see it as all the Britons are English. If you
listen to it thinking that the writer has some brain power, then you'll
see it as him/her saying the English are Britons.
Why
> on earth use the appellation Britons if it means only English? Then again,
> if it is meaning all Britons then why use England in the song title rather
> than Britain.
We are the same people. We share the same heritage, ancestory, history
and our common national culture. But as you well know, there are still
these petty differences which mean that many can't seem to see
themselves as anything other than English or Scottish, for example.
Poor, poor people :(
It is a prime example of some people's ignorance or arrogance
> over these points. The English may be Britons but Britons are not
> necessarily English.
And about 10% of the English aren't Britons either.
connochies
> connochies wrote:
>
> > Of course they are Britons, but the point is the song is confusing. It
> > seems to be addressing Britons in general as if they are all English.
>
> I don't think so - it's singing about the English as though they are
> Britons. It's another subjective viewpoint: if you read/listen to it
> with some predisposition that the English think the whole of Britain is
> England, then you'll see it as all the Britons are English. If you
> listen to it thinking that the writer has some brain power, then you'll
> see it as him/her saying the English are Britons.
I see your point, but of course it is not a one off, but just one in a long
line of examples.
>
> Why
> > on earth use the appellation Britons if it means only English? Then
again,
> > if it is meaning all Britons then why use England in the song title
rather
> > than Britain.
>
> We are the same people. We share the same heritage, ancestory, history
> and our common national culture. But as you well know, there are still
> these petty differences which mean that many can't seem to see
> themselves as anything other than English or Scottish, for example.
> Poor, poor people :(
Some people would not agree with you about sharing the same history, culture
etc. There is much that we share of course, being next door neighbours and
politically united for 300 odd hundred years that is inevitable. Why does
feeling Scottish, or English make anyone a poor person?
>
> It is a prime example of some people's ignorance or arrogance
> > over these points. The English may be Britons but Britons are not
> > necessarily English.
>
> And about 10% of the English aren't Britons either.
Right so what are you meaning by Britons then? I'm talking about anyone
that is British and using Briton for the adjective. What do you mean?
Allan
Allan-John Marsh
> Some people would not agree with you about sharing the same history, culture
> etc. There is much that we share of course, being next door neighbours and
> politically united for 300 odd hundred years that is inevitable.
The political union has, as the topic would have it, been only about
politics. You must remember that we had been living together as a
people for a good 2000 years before the Romans came, and have only been
divied up into the home nations as they stand now on Britain for about
1000, and even then it was only a grouping together of various tribal
areas that spoke a similar language. Our culture as it is today has a
very distinct national framework, and our history is a shared history
because of what we have done as a people. All regions have their
histories and cultural differences none-the-less, but that just comes
under the umbrella.
Why does
> feeling Scottish, or English make anyone a poor person?
It just does! Sorry, but that's the way things are.
> > And about 10% of the English aren't Britons either.
>
> Right so what are you meaning by Britons then? I'm talking about anyone
> that is British and using Briton for the adjective. What do you mean?
Ethnic term - for us, the indigenous people of Britain. I try to avoid
using Britons as a term for nationality, or else clarify it, as they are
two totally different meanings. I've got 4 cousins here in NZ, born
here and never set foot in Britain, yet 100% Britons. Ya dig?
Chic McGregor
In other words racist! Based on genetic antecedents.
Every* Scot knows that Scotland is as much a mixture of 'races' as
every other country in Northern Europe.
Every Scot knows that the mixture in Scotland hugely overlaps with the
mixture in England, (that is if it is even statistically seperable
with the present populations at all :-)).
Therefore every Scot knows that the argument for Scottish independence
is NOT genetically based.
Yet the movement towards it is inexorable.
You are barking up the wrong tree. In fact there is no tree :-).
The justification for independent statehood is as ever, along cultural
lines. Nothing to do with genetics whatsoever.
National cultures, defining, refining and evolving values held within
it's institutuions of justice, education, welfare, literature, arts,
music, science. are where people's national identity and personal
benchmarks come from. The proper maintainance of these institutions
is best supported by a legislature which is nationally aligned.
If Scotland was culturally identical with England, there simply would
not be any justification for independence, in fact the demand would
not even have arisen.
If you want to attack independence then you need to attack the
cultural aspect, that is where the great bulk of the British
establishment effort lies. (except at election time when they switch
to fiscal scaremongering).
You are obviously way out of touch.
Here are some tips for the budding Unionist.
1) Denigrate Scottish culture as much as possible. This reduces
peoples self-esteem and stops them from having enough confidence to
vote for self-determination. It may eventually lead to them rejecting
their own culture altogether.
2) Deny that there is any such thing as Scottish culture. (avoid
doing both 1) and 2) at the same time, some people might notice the
incompatibility problemette).
3) Point out how well Scotland is doing under the Union.
4) Point out Scotland's higher unemployment figures and that Scotland
gets subsidised by England. (Avoid doing 3) and 4) at the same time,
compatibility problemette again)
5) NEVER admit that there is a higher percentage of the Scottish
population working, or that Scotland generates far more for the
echequer per head. (or the huge inequity in 'unidentifiable'
expenditure)
6) Rubbish every Scottish hero.
7) Rubbish Scottish history.
8) Rubbish Scottish literature.
9) Rubbish Scottish music.
10) Rubbish Scottish scientific achievements.
11) Rubbish Scottish languages.
12) Pretend that nationalism has never featured in Scottish history,
or that it has only recently reared it's ugly head.
13) Tell protestants that nationalism is pro-catholic.
14) Tell catholics that nationalism is pro-protestant. (Don't do 13)
and 14) at the same time and make sure what school your audience went
to. first.)
15) As much as possible, get control of all means by which people can
be fed the above, TV, Newspapers, Publishing, Museums, Tourist
attractions. Money will be available.
There is more, but that should help get you started.
At least now you should be aligned with British based effort.
chic
* 'every' means >90%
connochies
> connochies wrote:
>
> > Some people would not agree with you about sharing the same history,
culture
> > etc. There is much that we share of course, being next door neighbours
and
> > politically united for 300 odd hundred years that is inevitable.
>
> The political union has, as the topic would have it, been only about
> politics. You must remember that we had been living together as a
> people for a good 2000 years before the Romans came, and have only been
> divied up into the home nations as they stand now on Britain for about
> 1000, and even then it was only a grouping together of various tribal
> areas that spoke a similar language.
Come on, you could transfer that argument to the whole of Europe and say
there are no Germans or French. The nations started to develop in the
second half of the first millenium and were pretty much there by the turn of
the millenium. We had different languages, different literature and largely
took on different religions. Our history followed along similar paths some
of the time, but not always. Agincourt was an English triumph not a British
one - we fought on the other side! Of course there is a large part of our
culture that we share with the other British, after all after 300 years how
could it be otherwise? However we have other aspects to our culture which
are not shared with other parts of the island. You can not say there is no
Scottish culture. Even something as simple as the 10 favourite poems on
poetry day normally bares no relationship to that voted in England. Some
anti-devolutionists tried to claim that there were no differences between
the peoples. Of course they lost this unwinnable argument as it's plainly
daft.
Our culture as it is today has a
> very distinct national framework, and our history is a shared history
> because of what we have done as a people. All regions have their
> histories and cultural differences none-the-less, but that just comes
> under the umbrella.
Scotland has a national culture, and of course this differs from region to
region that is true. Or are you describing Scotland as a region? Would you
describe England as a region? Scotland and England are both countries which
have united to form a union. N
>
> Why does
> > feeling Scottish, or English make anyone a poor person?
>
> It just does! Sorry, but that's the way things are.
Only in your mind, which seems to be out of touch with the vast majority of
British people. I feel enriched by my Scottishness so your statement comes
across as quite puzzling. You claim to feel only British, and nothing else,
so perhaps it is you who is the poorer person. Feeling Scottish doesn't
necessarily mean you feel less British! These terms mean different things
to us all anyway. Personally British is more of a geographic term to me,
and if the union were to end, I would feel just as British as I do now -
though I know others see it differently. I like an Englishman to be proud
of his country, after all why shouldn't he? St George [the non-troll one]
is obviously English and proud and no doubt just as British as you. I know
where he stands, but you claim to be only British whilst coming over as very
English.
>
> > > And about 10% of the English aren't Britons either.
> >
> > Right so what are you meaning by Britons then? I'm talking about anyone
> > that is British and using Briton for the adjective. What do you mean?
>
> Ethnic term - for us, the indigenous people of Britain.
The courts have recently decreed on at least two occassions that Scots and
English are different ethnic groups. Ethnic can mean different things to
different people.
I try to avoid
> using Britons as a term for nationality, or else clarify it, as they are
> two totally different meanings. I've got 4 cousins here in NZ, born
> here and never set foot in Britain, yet 100% Britons. Ya dig?
Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh seem to be more concrete terms than
British, which is a more geographic term, and pulls less on the old heart
strings generally. This is the same, perhaps even heightened, in the
diasporas. How many Americans do you hear saying "Oh I'm American British?"
Allan
St. George
Chic McGregor
>1) Denigrate Scottish culture as much as possible. This reduces people's
>>You forget 16) Use Scottish paranoia to your full advantage!
>>
>>
:-)
Auld Bob Peffers
"connochies" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:94v3pr$a93$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
There is a Church Of England and there is a separate Church Of Scotland.
English Law applies in England and a separate Scottish Law applies in
Scotland.
England has an Education System and Scotland has her own separate Education
System.
England has a Health System but Scotland's Health System is separate.
Scotland's teachers are better paid than their separate English
counterparts.
Scots OAPs are to have all their care costs met while the separate English
OAPs are not.
We have our own two languages in addition to English.
What more proof do you need that the two nations are separate?
Ah! now I see what's getting up your nose. Your jealous.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Web site, The Eck's Files.
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Donald McCaskey
news:94vj0c$e9p$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> You forget 16) Use Scottish paranoia to your full advantage!
>
If you actually ever set foot in Scotland, you can judge for yourself how
many of methods Chic mentioned are based entirely on Scottish paranoia and
how many of methods are actually employed by Unionist politicians to ensure
as many Scots as possible only vote for Unionist parties. In my experience,
every single method that Chic mentioned has been used by Unionists at one
time or other.
Don
--
The Vulcan Neck Pinch isn't half as powerful as the Vulcan Groin Kick, but
it is more politically correct!
Allan-John Marsh
> In other words racist! Based on genetic antecedents.
Racist nothing! So what you're saying is that we're all Britons, yet
some of us are White, some are Afro-Caribbean, some Bangladeshi, some
Indian, Pakistani, etc.? i.e. - we're all just white??? We could be
from Italy, Iceland, Germany, Spain, but we're just white?
Excuse me, but NO. Briton, like all those names listed above, is also a
term for an ethnic group. It is also the term of an indigenous ethnic
group. Indigenous implies the native people, the first people, those
descended from the first human beings to inhabit a land. We are not
just white. To admit that is to deny our own culture, heritage and
history. There is nothing RACIST about that at all. There is no
oppression, hatred or judging. Millions of people all around the world
are Britons. You have British-Americans, British-New Zealanders,
British-Australians, even British-Japanese: people who belong to the
British ethnic group yet are citizens, whether born or raised, in other
countries. Bangladeshis, other ethnic groups, no matter which one, born
or raised in Britain, might be British citizens, but they are not
indigenous. They are not Britons; they are Bangladeshis, Indians, even
Dutch. The majority of us ARE indigenous. The whole argument would be
so much simpler if Briton was, as it used to be before a sizeable
immigrant population, an ethnic term, and citizenship was designated by
something like Britisher, as UK citizens are called in India.
If you think that genetic antecendents are racist, and no doubt the
liberal establishment does too, then you and them are hypocrites. Who
would deny that ethnic populations are allowed to address themselves by
the correct name, simply because it is the same as the national term,
and thus ambiguous when it comes to non-indigenous members of the
population. Would I be just as Japanese as the Japanese if I were to
become a Japanese citizen, or were born there? I think not, yet the
reverse is expected in the UK>
Nick-Durie
Sorry AJ but you're wrong. First how do you know whether a white British
male of the same size and build as you got how genes from the same place as
you did - he could have had an Italian Grandfather etc. Second of all
supposing there were a group of people who were a genetically distinct white
'race' of British people, how could a person descover whether or not they
were indigenous - how do we know that the first Brirish people were not
small fat Negroid peoples originally from subSaharranAfrica? Thirdly, after
all the influxes of the myriad different peoples to enter and settle these
islands, how can we even begin to define a group of people who are obviously
going to be genetically very disparate, a group which is little more than a
plethora of different genetically distinct groups juxtaposed together throu
the accident of history. The idea of any distinct 'race' living in
somewhere like Scotland is made overly improbable to begin to even address
the question. UNlike the Japanese or the Maoris we have been constantly
invaded by peoples from different places across Europe and thereto nobody is
even sure about what genetic stock we had to start off with.
Nick-Durie
Donald McCaskey <Don...@mccaskey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94vpja$jfj$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "St. George" <TheGr...@England.ofcourse> wrote in message
> news:94vj0c$e9p$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> > You forget 16) Use Scottish paranoia to your full advantage!
> >
>
> If you actually ever set foot in Scotland, you can judge for yourself how
> many of methods Chic mentioned are based entirely on Scottish paranoia and
> how many of methods are actually employed by Unionist politicians to
ensure
> as many Scots as possible only vote for Unionist parties. In my
experience,
> every single method that Chic mentioned has been used by Unionists at one
> time or other.
>
I concur entirely - I've seen them all used by different Politicians and
their flunkies within the space of a week.
Chic McGregor
<day....@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>Chic McGregor wrote:
>
>> In other words racist! Based on genetic antecedents.
>
>Racist nothing! So what you're saying is that we're all Britons, yet
>some of us are White, some are Afro-Caribbean, some Bangladeshi, some
>Indian, Pakistani, etc.? i.e. - we're all just white??? We could be
>from Italy, Iceland, Germany, Spain, but we're just white?
>
>Excuse me, but NO. Briton, like all those names listed above, is also a
>term for an ethnic group. It is also the term of an indigenous ethnic
>group. Indigenous implies the native people, the first people, those
>descended from the first human beings to inhabit a land. We are not
>just white. To admit that is to deny our own culture, heritage and
>history. There is nothing RACIST about that at all. There is no
Oh yes there is, because it is exclusionary, and it is exclusionary in
a manner which permanent.
>oppression, hatred or judging. Millions of people all around the world
>are Britons. You have British-Americans, British-New Zealanders,
>British-Australians, even British-Japanese: people who belong to the
>British ethnic group yet are citizens, whether born or raised, in other
>countries.
>Bangladeshis, other ethnic groups, no matter which one, born
>or raised in Britain, might be British citizens, but they are not
>indigenous. They are not Britons; they are Bangladeshis, Indians, even
>Dutch. The majority of us ARE indigenous. The whole argument would be
>so much simpler if Briton was, as it used to be before a sizeable
>immigrant population, an ethnic term, and citizenship was designated by
>something like Britisher, as UK citizens are called in India.
>
>If you think that genetic antecendents are racist, and no doubt the
Genetic antecedents are genetic antecedents. What is racist is the
requiring of particular genetic antecedents to qualify for membership
of any particular culture. I believe that anyone, whatever their
genetic background, can become a full and participating member of any
culture simply by being born and raised there. You seem to believe
that is not possible.
>liberal establishment does too, then you and them are hypocrites. Who
>would deny that ethnic populations are allowed to address themselves by
>the correct name, simply because it is the same as the national term,
There is no hypocracy because there is no connection between the two,
except in your own mind.
>and thus ambiguous when it comes to non-indigenous members of the
>population. Would I be just as Japanese as the Japanese if I were to
>become a Japanese citizen, or were born there? I think not, yet the
>reverse is expected in the UK>
If you were born and raised in Japan, then you would have Japanese
cultural values and that would be your cultural identity. You would
be Japanese, culturally as well as legally. You would judge things
against your culture's norms and perspectives.
If there were some place where physical characteristics were
identifiably unique and by some means or other were consistent
throughout the population, then one would expect members of that
population to be more inclined to being racist like yourself, and
incomers may find it harder to be accepted. (That would not be a
jusrtification, but rather a reason, for their misconception.)
However, even this erroneous reason is not open to British racists.
Japan may or may not be in that category but the interesting thing
about Japan is how much of Western culture it has taken on board with
virtually no genetic influx from the West. They are one of the
clearest examples that culture is not genetically linked.
It is good to have different cultures, they provide different
perspectives, therefore different methods and solutions to problems.
Humanity benefits enormously from cultural diversity.
But there is no genetic qualification required for any particular
culture.
Even if you cloned one individual and repopulated the World with those
clones, within a very short time there would be significant diversity
of cultural perspectives on a regional basis. Over a much, much,
longer time frame, physical traits would also appear on a regional
basis due to environmental conditions. (Provided people movement was
restricted, which for all sorts of reasons it usually is).
The message here is that association of physical traits and culture is
illusory, a coincidence of regionalisation.
Also it is the different cultural perspectives which are important.
Such cultural diversity appears to naturally occur between human
groups, however they are formed, they aid human survival. It is these
cultural charactyeristics that are important to people in terms of
guidance and practicalities, i.e. their cultural identity.
Cultures can move without movement of people. People can move and
take on the culture of their new region. There is no demonstrable
linkage.
chic
connochies
Nick-Durie <Nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote in message
news:3a747...@news1.vip.uk.com...
Britain has always absorbed newcomers [Scots, Anglo-Saxons, Friesians,
Norse, Danish, Norman-French, Dutch, later Irish immigrants, Poles,
Italians, West Indians, Chinese, and the Indian sub-continent] and all these
people born here are Britons. In the Commonwealth Games Linford Christie
was an Englishman, in the Olympics he was a Briton. You have every right to
have your definition of what is and isn't a Briton of course. It is just not
shared by most people.
Sharon L. Krossa
> Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh seem to be more concrete terms than
> British, which is a more geographic term, and pulls less on the old heart
> strings generally. This is the same, perhaps even heightened, in the
> diasporas. How many Americans do you hear saying "Oh I'm American British?"
That would be "British-American" -- and few do, but I expect there are
some. For example, I would not be surprised if someone whose parents
came to the USA from England but whose grand-parents came to England
from Jamaica called themselves "British-American" rather than
"English-American", though I also wouldn't be surprised if they called
themselves "Jamacain-American" or "British-African-American" or any
number of other possibilities -- it all depends on what particular
aspect is more to the front in a particular situation (that being the
situation in which they use the term, not the situation of their
background -- they may use different terms depending on context).
Sharon, sero sed serio
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/