h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Supposedly. Originally. Ly. Ly....

Proud to be British?

You know I never really understood this, to-day people seem to be posing the question "what does it mean to be English, Scottish or whatever?" all the time but the whole question of having an identity based around some geographical area or political zone has puzzled me. When I think about who I am, what i believe, who i identify with the question of what passport I hold or where in the world my mother gave birth to me never figures for a moment. As for the British culture I am supposed to identify with, what is it? I know of none, as far as I can see we are increasingly living under an Americanised world culture, our culture is their culture, is this what I should identify with ? What about the British national character? Well "The British" are a very diverse bunch, for me to identify with them en masse because we share a nationality would mean having Peter Sutcliffe, Margaret Thatcher or other such objectionable characters as part of my personal identity and when I look back through the "great and good" of British history I find not people I identify with but people I too would be arguing against had I lived then. British history does give examples of groups I can empathise with, groups and movements that inspire me but I also find these people and groups of people in other countries too; both now and in the past. There are also things done in the British name that I deplore; the concentration camps in southern Africa, condoning the use of terrible weapons like DU tipped bombs, massacres in Indian, and the operation of the Empire in general to name but a few, how can I call these my history and part of my identity?
I don't even like the concept of countries, countries are artificial creations, constantly changing with the wind even within small islands like our own as economic and political forces change. Wars are invariably fought between differing countries or groups of countries against one or more country; they serve only to divide us and to pit one group against another as political and economic borders on the earth change. What benefit does mankind gain from the continued existence of different groups willing to kill and maim people who are not part of their clan? The only use of terms such as England, Italy or whatever that is useful is for sport or other areas where competition is absolutely vital to it's function and there aren't that many. I can think of no rational reason for the continuation of this state of affairs, we don't need countries, in fact they are a hindrance to our development in areas like limiting environmental damage (think of both the Rio and Kyoto (sp?) summits), the distribution of basic resources like food or advances in health care techniques or life saving drugs (AZT) and in curbing multinational companies like Monsanto or Shell in the world of capitalist "globalisation".
Global problems require global decisions and global action. In the future maybe the formation of supranational political structures around "communities" like the EU or NAFTA for whatever reason will loosen the nostalgic ties people have with the current nationalities and will start people looking for new groups to identify with and feel proud to be a part of. Maybe social forces will bring about huge dramatic changes to how the world functions but whatever development takes place in these areas it is clear to me that mankind's future is not with any nation state. I would argue it is with humanity as a whole, we have more potential together. The more we interact with people from different communities and from different backgrounds the more we will see the similarities we have and splitting people up or defining ourselves by nationality will seem silly, i think this can only be a good and progressive development. And so I have no nationality, no allegiance to any nation state and I look elsewhere for my own identification.

Whew! Here, here.

Ferdi - I'd have to say that there are a couple of reasons for nationalism(which is basically what you are talking about)

1) As humans we feel a need to belong to something. At this point in time Countries and Nationality are it. In times past it was the tribe or clan or family. In the future it may be the corporation or a net community.

2) The second reason, the one that I feel best fits me, is a matter of self-esteem. I like who I am, and who I am is, atleast in part, a result of where I am. Therefore I have a certain fondness for the place that helped make me.

There's more to it than that, of course, but I don't have time for any more at the moment. Plus, I think better if someone is arguing with me, and noone is, yet.

It should be called the Scottish Empire - after all we ran most of it, and our Scientists and Engineers came up with most of the ideas. The greatest thing the Scots did was to build up our empire and then make sure the dim witted English got all the blame when it was no longer viable

.....Posted 27 Weeks ago by Hypnogogic Electro-Monk
I think you may have it a little backwards...
Actually, I don't think that writer did have it backwards. I'm Scottish and much prefer the idea of it being the English Empire as the whole British Empire deal is something to be ashamed of, not proud of so I'd be happier if we Scots were not held in any way responsible. Sadly, I doubt we are really innocent of it so have to share the blame and shame.

Do you actually think that TV and Radio news is impartial, accurate and complete? Surely not?

Of course it isn't. But relatively to the press they're much better - I'd never trust what I'd see in a tabloid, Murdoch or right-winged paper. Though TV is obviously not impartial, it is a bit more accurate... normally .

But I would hate having The Guardian scrapped - it's a great paper.

What does it matter anyway? Give it another few years and the UK will just be an outpost state in the Federal Republic of Europe (FRE). London will be reduced to the status of Provincial Capital and the British people will vote on a Congressman/-woman to be their representative in Bonn, not their own president/prime minister.

When I think of this, I am glad I made the move to the USA. At least over here they've had 225 years of practice at being a Republic. In most cases they have got it right.

I wouldn't so too quick to suggest that TV and radio news coverage is accurate and unbiased.

I wouldn't so quick to suggest that TV and radio news coverage is accurate and unbiased.

They might not want to be but they are...

Pretanike, (which the Romans changed to the Latin Britanni.) was the Celtic name for these islands... and the armies and governments of the British Empire had Scots, Welsh, Cornish and English people in them.

quote ..."
island which had in their turn been repressed by the English
..."unquote

..."the English" ...! I wish you would not be so homophobic with your historical references.
I am English and am not ashamed of it - I am sure somewhere ..somewhere in history be it artistically, literary or scientifically "the English" did some good and contributed to the world. But to hear you talk about "us" - "the English" I feel like a bloody NAZI! ...

But he's the best one!

"Air, looks like it was put in by a bally Indian"

Even Chuck wouldn't come up with something that brilliant.

Merde. Eet iz well known zat ze French use km just to make zere country look biggair. Why else would they?

What nonsense. I read at least two or three editorial commentry sections daily and pick up the news I need in minutes and IN DEPTH - something which tv/radio producers seem largely incapable of. I read more than one because I want to form my own unbiased opinion. Working in IT I use the web excessively (50+ hour pw) but there's little worth digesting I find. I'm not saying we should use newspapers forever, more that they provide a unique service which the rest of the brain-dead media cannot provide.
So there.

I suspect part of the National Identity issue - who we feel we are - is that our personal identity is attached to the groups we belong to, or have some affiliation with. Part of my identity is, all at the same time, a Hobartian, Tasmanian, Australian, person of Scots descent, peroon of Englosh descent, etc. What I think of myself as really depends on the situation.

Scots, Irish, Welsh (less so) did indeed all participate in the British Empire. But, what was the dominant force in the creation of the Empire ... who was the dominant partner so to speak? England. I don't think that trying to explain England's role here is England-bashing ... it is very easy to mix up explanation with justification. This is just something that was done. I'm not sure if this makes sense ... what I am trying to say is that a country's past should not necessarily reflect what they are today, as it assumes that things don't or can't change.

Cheers
Bran.

Why were the Welsh less involved? We were smaller in number than the rest but (unfortunately!) I don't think it can be said we were proportionately less involved than the rest of the British isles.

In fact the Welsh really do have a claim of some form to have invented the British Empire (sorry, Scotland!). The Welsh always had a strong sense of being the remnants of the people of Britain. When the Tudors took the throne of England they brought this idea with them (along with the many Welshmen who ran a large part of the administration of England and held many high offices). It was during this time - especially Elizabeth's reign - that England started on the path that led to the formation of empire. The idea of 'Britishness' became a vehicle by which the Irish and Scottish were partners in the scheme instead of conquered peoples or an independent threat. The Welsh were the 'trigger' to forming this idea, without which there would have been no empire.

Someone famous said something like "your nationality is like your skeleton - you don't notice it until it's broken".

Nationality is (to me) simply a way of describing a group of people of a variable size larger than that of a basic community who have a particular type of common bond, whatever that may be (although commonly a territory, language or culture). Everyone has a nationality of a sort - by childhood experience if nothing else - even if it is highly mixed. It does not mean having to hate or disrespect other nations in the same way that being an individual does not mean having to hate or disrespect other individuals. Indeed, I would argue that a strong and stable national identity can promote positive interaction with others (as with individuals).


To those who see the whole World as having their culture (maybe by virtue of being ignorant of everyone else) then the ones who say they are different to others can seem quite perverse. E.g. to the Englishman who sees the whole planet as English-speaking I can seem odd because I speak Welsh - why waste time and effort? Surely all Welsh people speak English anyway? Surely it's going to die in the long run? What is the point in speaking Welsh if the whole planet is speaking English?
He does not understand that at least a small part of it isn't; that I not only have access to a vast range of culture but that this is an integral part of me because I grew up with Welsh (as well as English). Can you imagine how you would feel if someone stole half of the nursery rhymes, poems, novels, jokes, etc. in your brain? This is part of who I am. It does not prevent me from experiencing other cultures and perspectives or even changing to something different over time. Nor do I rub it in people's faces or claim that because of it I am better than everyone else. But it is something that I wish to continue with and I would like other people to show some respect about that - they don't have to care about it themselves.

'Nationality' is one of those words that means so many things to so many people it is almost worthless.

E.g. the nationalists (good) of the Baltic States were applauded by the Tories and British press in the late 80's for demanding independence from the USSR but the nationalists (bad) of Scotland and Wales were condemned for asking for less in the UK! The connotations of the word here were clearly determined by whether political advantage was being gained...

Similarly, I have heard Nelson Mandela and Ghandi referred to as nationalists but also Stalin and even Hitler once! Interesting group.

To cap it all, the people of the Baltic States who wanted to leave the Soviet Union were called nationalists but Zhirinovsky(?) was the leader of the 'nationalists' in Russia who wanted to re-invade these countries! So here it seems the word covers wanting invaders to leave AND wanting to invade other countries (which I thought was called imperialism).

Be very wary of this word 'nationalism'.....