Author Topic: The State of Englishness  (Read 31331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2008, 06:22:18 PM »
JS has abviously never discussed this with the Welsh, or a Scott. Never mind the Irish.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2008, 07:30:33 PM »

>>no, no we're not. Can you tell yet that I find worrying over protecting indigenous culture to be just a bit ridiculous?<<

Jews in Europe felt much the same. As did the Spanish before the Muslim's hords stormed in. History is full of examples.


What indigenous culture were the Jews in Europe going to be protecting? And while I know some folks think of immigration as an invasion, the two are not the same.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Rich

  • Guest
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2008, 08:10:45 PM »
>>What indigenous culture were the Jews in Europe going to be protecting? And while I know some folks think of immigration as an invasion, the two are not the same.<<

Jewishness? Living Jewry?

Immigration isn't the same as in invasion of course. However, what we are seeing today is certainly looking like one. Immigration presupposes that immigrants want to be part of the country they immigrate to. That isn't what Muslim immigrants want. They want to remove all vestiges of the old culture and replace it with their own Islam based culture, by force if necessary. You see it in Norway, France, and now in England.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2008, 11:56:00 PM »

Quote
What indigenous culture were the Jews in Europe going to be protecting?

Jewishness? Living Jewry?


This apparently indescribable (and possibly vague) culture was indigenous exactly where in Europe?


Quote
And while I know some folks think of immigration as an invasion, the two are not the same.

Immigration isn't the same as in invasion of course. However, what we are seeing today is certainly looking like one. Immigration presupposes that immigrants want to be part of the country they immigrate to. That isn't what Muslim immigrants want. They want to remove all vestiges of the old culture and replace it with their own Islam based culture, by force if necessary. You see it in Norway, France, and now in England.


The notion that the newest wave of immigrants does not want to become part of the country to which they have immigrated is as old as immigration itself. Yes, our ancestors immigrated, but these people blah blah blah yackity schmackity. I'm not saying there are not legitimate issues here, I'm just saying the notion that we in the West somehow have a pure culture, an indigenous culture to maintain is simply humbuggery. If we lived on a tiny and isolated island in the middle of the ocean, or in some remote part of some remote rainforest, and had never changed our culture in thousands of years, the "indigenous culture" argument might have some truth to it. But we don't and it doesn't. We live in a constantly changing culture with influences from many different groups of people. And within Western culture, heck within U.S. culture, are many sub-cultures that are quite different from one another. I'm not saying the argument to protect Western culture cannot be made. I'm merely suggesting that to do so properly requires honesty about what our culture is and how it came to be.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2008, 12:23:53 AM »
Things like the confederate flag, racist language, etc...are just secondary factors of racism. They are symbols.

Racism is a function of an entire system.

F(racism) Domination = Prejudice + Exploitation

Essentially, racism, at least in the western world as we know it, is the establishment of white = human and white = normal. There is a very interesting book that a psychiatrist named Kovel wrote in the 1970's called The Psychoanalysis of Racism. I've read much more modern views, but have rarely read better books than that one.

It is extremely interesting to read and understand what actions and words tell you about the individual and society that promotes racism. You see very common themes appear in the United States, South Africa, and many other places.

It sounds to me like you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that only white people can be racist- or perhaps even the insane notion that ALL white people are inherently racist.  Do you?

Racism is simply the belief that one's race is superior to other races.  All of the semantical nonsense that has been invented to excuse black racism (which is currently rampant in this country) is just so much revisionism. 

There is, of course, such a thing as White Supremacy (that is, the belief in it - not the actual situation).  There is institutionalized racism, as was obviously the case in the US for a large part of its history.  Those forms of racism are white, and the latter DOES require a "system" (or more correctly, it pervades the system of which it is part).  But there are parallels in virtually all cultures throughout history.  In spite of political correctness, indigenous Americans did, in fact, discriminate and practice horrible atrocities against one another.  So did Africans, Asians and quite probably the penguins in Antartica.  Western culture just happens to have been the most aggressive the most recently. 

The suggestions that only white people are racist or all whites are inherently racist are, in themselves, racist.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8032
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2008, 02:06:37 AM »
I find it quite unfair to lump people together
I know
I`m chinese and somehow I`m supposed to relate to japanese,koreans,tibetans and all other asians
all with distinct language and culture
people don`t get it,we`re not the same people

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2008, 02:25:21 AM »

Yeah, some years ago here in the U.S. we had some states try to separate themselves in the name of protecting their sovereignty and their culture. That didn't really work out so well.


Yeah, and here in the colonies we had 13 of 'em try to separate themselves from the Crown in the name of protecting their sovereignty and their culture. That didn't really work out so...

Oh wait....
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2008, 03:11:55 AM »

Yeah, and here in the colonies we had 13 of 'em try to separate themselves from the Crown in the name of protecting their sovereignty and their culture.


The American Revolution was about protecting the culture and sovereignty of the colonies? Huh. Interesting perspective. So does this mean you think Lincoln was wrong to make war to prevent the southern states from seceding?

More importantly, are you in fact advocating the end of the United Kingdom via the separation of Scotland, England, Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and whoever else prefers the nationalistic notion of protecting their "indigenous" sovereignty and culture from the influence of others? Between the article you posted and your comment about the American Revolution, you seem to be suggesting something like that might be a good idea. If so, how would any of that protect "Englishness"? And how would it address the problem of immigration?

Anyway, I notice you picked out one line from my initial reply and ignored the questions I asked. Does the group of "indigenous English" include the Normans (and presumably their descendants)? If it includes Saxons, does it also include Celts? And what, exactly, is "Englishness" anyway? (One hopes that Benny Hill is not the sum total of "Englishness".)
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2008, 06:37:17 AM »

Yeah, and here in the colonies we had 13 of 'em try to separate themselves from the Crown in the name of protecting their sovereignty and their culture.


The American Revolution was about protecting the culture and sovereignty of the colonies? Huh. Interesting perspective.
One of the pressing issues to the Colonists was the outcome of the French Indian war , many felt that the deference the Crown was paying to the French was inappropriate and that a despotic form of governhment was being shown preference , such that Ohio and the Missippi valley was going to be made into Canadian territory and halt the western expantion of the Colonists in their accustomed freedom as English citizens.
Quote



So does this mean you think Lincoln was wrong to make war to prevent the southern states from seceding?

That is an interesting question , his leagal rights under the Constitution were shakey , but he felt at liberty to impose Northern Culture on the South bvecause doing otherwise might destroy the Constitution anyway.
Quote


More importantly, are you in fact advocating the end of the United Kingdom via the separation of Scotland, England, Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and whoever else prefers the nationalistic notion of protecting their "indigenous" sovereignty and culture from the influence of others? Between the article you posted and your comment about the American Revolution, you seem to be suggesting something like that might be a good idea. If so, how would any of that protect "Englishness"? And how would it address the problem of immigration?

Anyway, I notice you picked out one line from my initial reply and ignored the questions I asked. Does the group of "indigenous English" include the Normans (and presumably their descendants)? If it includes Saxons, does it also include Celts? And what, exactly, is "Englishness" anyway? (One hopes that Benny Hill is not the sum total of "Englishness".)[/color]


If you watch "Bravehart" three times in a row you will be thirsting for revenge against those dastardly English , was it a propaganda peice for the idea of Scottish independance?

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2008, 07:17:17 AM »

Yeah, and here in the colonies we had 13 of 'em try to separate themselves from the Crown in the name of protecting their sovereignty and their culture.


The American Revolution was about protecting the culture and sovereignty of the colonies? Huh. Interesting perspective. So does this mean you think Lincoln was wrong to make war to prevent the southern states from seceding?

Yes. You don't believe a people has a right to self-determination? That government derives it's just powers from consent of the governed? And that they're free to withdraw that consent at their choosing? Interesting perspective from a libertarian.

More importantly, are you in fact advocating the end of the United Kingdom via the separation of Scotland, England, Wales, Yorkshire, Cornwall and whoever else prefers the nationalistic notion of protecting their "indigenous" sovereignty and culture from the influence of others? Between the article you posted and your comment about the American Revolution, you seem to be suggesting something like that might be a good idea. If so, how would any of that protect "Englishness"? And how would it address the problem of immigration?
Again, I advocate they do whatever suits them, for whatever reason it suits them. See above.

Anyway, I notice you picked out one line from my initial reply and ignored the questions I asked. Does the group of "indigenous English" include the Normans (and presumably their descendants)? If it includes Saxons, does it also include Celts? And what, exactly, is "Englishness" anyway? (One hopes that Benny Hill is not the sum total of "Englishness".)[/color]

I doubt anyone but a geneticist could sort out the Saxons from the Normans at this point. However, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that however they came by their identity, the current inhabitants of the country known as England identify themselves as "English". This identity is a composite that includes customs, mannerisms, culture, language, traditions and ethnic characteristics.

I certainly have no trouble identifying an Englishman when I've met one. Do you?
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2008, 07:52:24 AM »

Quote
What indigenous culture were the Jews in Europe going to be protecting?

Jewishness? Living Jewry?


This apparently indescribable (and possibly vague) culture was indigenous exactly where in Europe?


There was a very distinct culture , more than one really that arose ammong the jews in exile , Yiddish language is a product of Jewishness in a German environment .

One of the arguements for the existance of Isreal is that it is hard to defend a culture with out haveing a homeland for it.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2008, 08:21:14 AM »
One of the arguements for the existance of Isreal is that it is hard to defend a culture with out haveing a homeland for it.
   

=============================================
Being as the Jews had no homeland from 44 through 1947, this is not really a valid argument. Jews have been changed immensely in this time, but they still manage to defend the culture, such as it is. Here in Miami, every Saturday, one sees hundreds of Jews dressed in what used to be 18th century Polish middle class village attire (broad brimmed black hats over yarmulkes, long black frock coats and such) walking to temple. The only bit of original Land of Judea attire is the prayer shawl and the yarmulke and the odd terfillen.

Of course, traditional American attire was once knee breeches and a tricorn hat.


Armenians have had a homeland for maybe 400 years in the past 2000. Gypsies have had no homeland, even in myth, for centuries. The word 'Gyspsy' comes from the word 'Egyptian', because they passed themselves off as Egyptian Coptic Christians in Catholic Europe when the arrived there c. 1400 AD. Until recently, Georgia (in the Caucasus) was not independent since the Russians took over centuries ago. Were Ossetia and Chechnya even independent at all?

How many years have Estonians, Lithuanians, and Latvians had a homeland? Or Karelians, Uigars, Lapps or Eskimos? This is a spurious argument.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 02:28:43 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2008, 11:31:51 AM »
JS has abviously never discussed this with the Welsh, or a Scott. Never mind the Irish.

As a matter of fact, I've had some very interesting conversations with all three and a number of Englishmen as well.

You realize that Wales has voted against leaving the union? And Scotland has done the same?

As I've said a number of times, Northern Ireland is a completely different situation. It was a by-product of the Irish Free State and the Irish Civil War and was never intended to be a separate country of its own.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2008, 12:40:08 PM »
Things like the confederate flag, racist language, etc...are just secondary factors of racism. They are symbols.

Racism is a function of an entire system.

F(racism) Domination = Prejudice + Exploitation

Essentially, racism, at least in the western world as we know it, is the establishment of white = human and white = normal. There is a very interesting book that a psychiatrist named Kovel wrote in the 1970's called The Psychoanalysis of Racism. I've read much more modern views, but have rarely read better books than that one.

It is extremely interesting to read and understand what actions and words tell you about the individual and society that promotes racism. You see very common themes appear in the United States, South Africa, and many other places.

It sounds to me like you subscribe to the ridiculous notion that only white people can be racist- or perhaps even the insane notion that ALL white people are inherently racist.  Do you?

Racism is simply the belief that one's race is superior to other races.  All of the semantical nonsense that has been invented to excuse black racism (which is currently rampant in this country) is just so much revisionism. 

There is, of course, such a thing as White Supremacy (that is, the belief in it - not the actual situation).  There is institutionalized racism, as was obviously the case in the US for a large part of its history.  Those forms of racism are white, and the latter DOES require a "system" (or more correctly, it pervades the system of which it is part).  But there are parallels in virtually all cultures throughout history.  In spite of political correctness, indigenous Americans did, in fact, discriminate and practice horrible atrocities against one another.  So did Africans, Asians and quite probably the penguins in Antartica.  Western culture just happens to have been the most aggressive the most recently. 

The suggestions that only white people are racist or all whites are inherently racist are, in themselves, racist.

Did you miss where I said "in the western world?"

I am speaking of "primary racism." Differentiating groups and attacking those differences has long been a part of humanity.

Dominating a group through exploitation and prejudice is a part of the white world we live in today and is only a modern invention. Look at your own wording, "was obviously the case in the US for a large part of its history."

No, Pooch, it IS the case for the United States. You don't take 400 years of racism away in a five year span of rewriting a few laws. What is interesting is that slavery grew worse, harsher in the United States (starting with the colonies) as time went on. In the early 1600's slaves were never considered permanent. They could own land, livestock, and eventually purchase freedom or simply earn it (as in Biblical times). Yet, it grew harsher, punishments more severe. White America took everything from Africans. Their families. Their futures. Then they gave them freedom - but did they?

No. The original Republicans were the Free Soil movement of the Midwest. They wanted to seize the Southern plantations and divide the land amongst the former slaves. Yet, the Northeast capitalists had taken over the GOP by then. It was no longer the grassroots abolitionist party it once was. Racism was permitted to thrive once more. And it does to this day. Secondary racism, of which you speak, is more taboo thanks to the much maligned multiculturalism. Yet, primary racism lives on.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The State of Englishness
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2008, 03:09:39 PM »
No, Pooch, it IS the case for the United States. You don't take 400 years of racism away in a five year span of rewriting a few laws.

Nonsense.  Racism exists in all parts of the world, and black racism is MORE pervasive now than white in the US.  The reason for this is that it is now acceptable to be a Black Racist, as it once was acceptable to be a White Racist.  (It's just not acceptable to LABEL it racism.)  The very appropriate (and long overdue) backlash against White Racism that took place in the fifties and sixties led to a lot of laws, court decisions and the like that changed the legal landscape.  But the more lasting effect of that backlash was to change the mind of the majority of Americans.  Of course there are white racists in America, and the first amendment even allows the most brain-dead of them to spout off their nonsense in public.  But unlike fifty years ago MOST Americans do not agree - not even tacitly - with what they say.  They are no longer leaders, they are the lunatic fringe.  Far more Americans still have racial prejudice, but they sublimate it into personal prejudice.  They know better than to endorse discrimination.  Most of them don't even WANT to discriminate.  They accept the idea that races are equal, they just can't overcome their natural prejudices.  This is not an American condition, it is a human condition, as you have pointed out. 

African-Americans, however, consider themselves justified in their brand of racial hatred.  It isn't racism, they say, because you have to have POWER to be a racist.  That's just a self-serving redefinition of the word.  Black people use racial slurs and stereotypes in describing white people with impunity.  Oprah Winfrey can build a school, recruit all black children to attend and then when questioned about it say "I don't have to explain myself to white people."  (Yeah, I know, that's not the exact quote but it is an accurate representation.)  Imagine if Rush Limbaugh did that with the appropriate racial adjustments.  Oprah Winfrey is a racist.  She is even a racist by the PC definition, because there are few people in America with her clout.  There's a real good chance that had she endorsed Hillary, this wouldn't even be a race.  But why endorse a white person - even a woman - when there is "one of us" running.  But nobody will call her a racist, because Blacks can't be racist.

African-Americans continue to use the tired old "racism" excuse for all of their social ills, personal failures and bad decisions.  And yes, I am broad-brushing, but there IS a cultural mindset among African-Americans that says the White Man is their real problem.  Even Barak Obama, who is very likely to reach the highest office in the land, still whines about the White man.  The justification for hatred of White people is that Whites have always been - and are still - holding blacks down.  Horsecrap.  White people held black people down for a long time, but that time is past.  While some residual barriers still remain from the slavery and Jim Crow years, most Black people today are held down by Black people - very often themselves.  One of the biggest barriers to many black people is their own prejudice.  They use it as an excuse to fail - and then blame that failure on others.  That, too, is a human condition - it's called rationalization.

Now there is one possible difference between White Racism and Black Racism in America.  White Racism was a function of the idea (once widely-accepted) of White Supremacy.   Whites believed that their race was naturally superior to other races.  That's what gave them the right to enslave blacks and steal land from indigenous peoples.  Black racism OTOH, though sometimes based on Black Supremacy, is more often based on White Inferiority.  It is the belief that, whatever place the black race may hold on the totem pole (if there even is one) White people are at the bottom.   Whites are the evil overlords who rape and pillage the world.  The mindset, while racist and wrong, is at least far more justifiable and easy to forgive.  It's hard to view people in a good light who have treated your people like hell for centuries.  But however good the excuse for the attitude may be, it is not correct and it IS racism.   When I can't get hired because a less-qualified black man is up for the same job, when someone picks a fight with me just because I'm white in the wrong part of town,  when juries free a murderer just because he is black and they are too, it's the same damn thing as when the shoe is on the other foot.  Racism is racism and, at the risk of creating an awful pun, I tend to like to call a spade a spade.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .