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

Weird idea of English History there Effers.I'd have a word with your teachers. It's actually more like -


Some Italians wander over – a kicking ensues and they leave some Gypsies and violin-players to keep an eye on you. As soon as they leave, some Germans and Danes pitch up – another kicking sadly. Thirdly, and I hope you’re sitting down for this bit, the *French* see how easy it is, hop over the Channel and the clash runs to form again.

Things settle down for a bit until the delusions of grandeur kick in again and the French owners of England lay claim to France and raise an English army. You’ll be not awfully surprised to learn that, yes, the English get another kicking.

Now, to be fair, it takes a man to admit when he’s just not up to the job so the English swallow humble pie and invite our King down to look after them. Success all round as they’ve never been conquered since.

"It's a great mistake to say that we have no culture"

It certainly is, and I suppose I shouldn't expect someone to be able to recognise the indigenous culture if they can't even spell "indigenous" given two attempts and the correct spelling in the posting they're replying to.

But here's what concerns me: thinking beings recognise British culture, what makes it up etc. They can even list a dozen characteristics of it at the drop of a hat.

Now and again, small-c conservatives voice concerns about threats to it from bolshy immigrants.

What baffles me is the very, very common retort, an example of which we've just seen - the claim, not that the threat does not exist, but that OUR CULTURE does not exist. That the rise of militant Islamism or uncontrolled immigration cannot pose a threat our way of life, because WE DON'T HAVE ONE.

How can anyone claim such an obviously, blatantly stupid thing and keep their face straight? Isn't anyone embarrassed to try to pretend that "oh, well, Britain's not really got an identifiable culture of its own, so it doesn't matter if it's swamped by foreign cultures and destroyed".

Whether or not you believe the second half of that statement is hyperbolic or realistic, what on EARTH makes anyone think the first part makes any sense at all? Why such self-loathing? Are we all so ashamed of our colonial past, or something? Are we embarrassed that this little nation of ours was a global superpower for centuries? (Or are we more embarrassed that we're not any more?)

And onto something else that gets my goat:

"we are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants"

Arrant nonsense. This idea stems, I think, from school history lessons, where we learn all the exciting stuff about the Romans who invaded, and the Danes and the rest who invaded, and the Normans who invaded, and we get the impression that Britain is this battered, helpless little rock with hapless inhabitants forever being overrun by better armed, better organised foreigners.

But the reality is that, while all of that did happen, our history since then - i.e. for about eight hundred years - is of us going out and overrunning other places. I always wonder why people want to try to deny this fact: more people have immigrated to the UK in the last fifty years than did so in the previous five hundred, and this has fundamentally changed the nature of British society. What is so difficult about that fact that people would try to pretend it isn't true?

There are perfectly good reasons why immigration increased massively after the war - a significant proportion of our workforce was dead or disabled. The British Nationality Act of 1948 opened the doors for Commonwealth citizens to fill the many vacancies for unskilled labour after the war. In 1953, there were 3,000 immigrants. In 1961, there were over 136,000. In the 1951 census, just over 4% of the population had been born abroad. In the 2001 census, that proportion had doubled - well over 8% of the population had been born abroad. These are not opinions, not the rantings of some BNP nutbar - these are bald facts from the Office of National Statistics.

Why do people try to pretend that immigration has not increased by orders of magnitude from the previously very low levels?

Why, fundamentally, do people try to pretend we're "a nation of immigrants", when the reality is precisely the opposite? This is a nation of EMIGRANTS, which is why the lingua franca of the world is English and not French, German or Spanish.

Immigration is something which, in living memory, was negligible, but has fundamentally changed the nature of society and which continues to have massive impacts on local economies and the nation as a whole. Why the reluctance, even hostility, to acknowledging this obvious fact?

>>Yes Otto, I'd broadly agree with your list, but I think most of those things I asociate with Britishness rather than Englishness. I've made the point elsewhere that I think England was colonised by 'Britain' every bit as much as far flung places<<

Then where, pray tell, did the Britishness come from? Because the things Otto listed (and I agree with as a decent stab at defining Englishness) would seem pretty alien to most Scots. And if that is Britishness rather than Englishness, what would Englishness consist of?

Also, try to remember that it's only relatively recently that English and British have been seperate terms: they used to be used interchangeably.

SoRB as the delectable Ms Bonnie Greer said to Nick Griffin a while ago, you need to read some history books. I have some I could lend you. If you truly believe that England in 900 and England in 1900 are in any way alike culturally, you have some learning to do.

Yes, I know this link is from the anti-christ's loo roll, but it's a passionately put point of view about the veil from a Muslim woman who probably knows more about it than anyone here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1296132/The-burka-empowering-women-You-mad-minister.html

>>But the reality is that, while all of that did happen, our history since then - i.e. for about eight hundred years - is of us going out and overrunning other places.<<

What about the French Hugenots, Jews from all over the continent, German weavers, Baltic and Slavic traders, Irish farmers, Muslim slaves and traders, Dutch farmers and engineers, black African slaves, Flemish craftsmen? Why do many areas of major cities have areas called Little Germany or Little Italy or Chinatown?

Since the Elizabethan age and the decline of Spain and Portugal, England has been one of the world's preeminent trading nations: London, Liverpool and Bristol received and sent ships all over the world. Some of the people on those ships settled down and added their culture to our own. Empire isn't a one-way street - we sent out people to the world and the world sent people to us.

>>This is a nation of EMIGRANTS, which is why the lingua franca of the world is English and not French, German or Spanish.<<

Well, no, that'd be the Americans fault. It was America's rise that cemented English as the dominant language: before then the lingua franca had been French (the clue is in the phrase really). French was the language of international discourse and German was used most often in academia. While English was spoken all over the globe, it wasn't until the inter-war period that it was seen as the dominant language.

I think there's a certain 'schizophrenic' attitude to the English past. Maybe it relates a bit to swl's post 61. On the one hand we have a certain pride that no warlike invasion happened since 1066, but on the other we have pride in our sense of richness of culture because of invasion.

At my secondary school we had six houses, Britons, Romans, Vikings, Danes, Saxons and Normans. I was a proud member of Britons. I never quite knew who Britons were, but assumed it referred to some indigenous people who were living on this island before the Romans came..thats getting on for 2000 years.

Here's a link that looks at the numbers of immigrants through history - http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/immig.html

Interesting to see that Flemish weavers accounted for only 0.8% of the population, the Huguenots about the same. At the height of the slave trade, the number of black people in Britain never exceeded 0.2%.

UK culture and traditions - an indicative, non-exclusive, non-final list:

(Well this isnt a bad list but...well I'll comment as I go through it.)


1. An obsession with social class


2. Softly spoken, polite, understated, reserved
has anyone here ever been for a night out in Newcastle?

3. Liberal democratic values, including free speech
I remember the gagging order on the IRA, I remember the way the Government went after the BBC over Dr Kelly's leaks. Seems some people have shorter memories than I do.

4. Support for the underdog - a strong dislike of bullying
unless the underdog in question has resources we want then we'll be the bullies.

5. Strong Christian heritage with broadly secular values
Broadly secular, yeah compared to Saudi Arabia maybe but rabidly theocratic comapred to The Netherlands. Actually if you look into religion we actually have is a strong pagan heritage with a top coat of Christian rules including barring non-Christians from University and staunch laws prohibiting the publication of certain books for the majority of the last 1,000 years

6. A deep suspicion of ideologues and demagogues
I'd say indolence and such a gulf between the classes that no one person could be universaly popular. Dont forget Moseley had lots of supporters and so did Scargill, despite the shortcomings of their vision both enjoyed staunch support.

7. Obsessed by the weather


8. Insular and crap at learning foreign languages
Unless you happen to be upper class and its de'rigeur to travel and learn even the dead foreign languages. Unless you're a student when it is very a'la mode ot travel around dozens of foreign countries the more remote and more authentically foreign the better. unless you're a bit of a food or wine buff. Unless you're a film buff seeking out rare South Korean delights. Some people are very insular, some are just lazt lots of us arent.

9. Post-empire superiority complex
laughably the most inaccurate item on this list. There are many Brits who dont have this outlook and are infact REALISTIC about Britains past, present and future and arent as celebratory of this country as a coked-up Alf Garnett would be. Such people called all sorts of names including un-British or are accused of being ashamed of their Britishness. You just dont hear from lots of them because of they flak they get for speaking their minds. As it happens Im British and neither ashamed or proud of it anyone who thinks that pride is conferred or lost by the actions of a nation then thy're idiots. Unless you made a concious contribution how does any of it reflect glory or shame on you?

10. The sheer importance of our complex humour - irony, understatement, sarcasm, satire
I once ovrheard a conversation in a pub "You couldn't pay me to go to America, they're all too closed minded over there" True we have our fair share of Peter Cooks but we also have twits like the bloke I heard in the pub (who actually won the pub quiz that night, shows how smart all the other Brits there were, I was working that night or would have cleaned up)When I hear people, here in Britain, talking about satire they often mention Swift. He just happens to have been Irish. Not every Brit gets irony.

11. A love of gardens and animals.
Where do you live? You should try driving round some coucil estates in Britain to see the beloved gardens and when you've had a look there drive up to some remote part of Scotland to see how our roy<al family express their love of animals. Then try following some of those same royals to the Cotswolds and see how much they love foxes. Then back to the coucil estates to see how people love their pitbulls and if all this driving makes you hungry you can go to McDonalds to have a bite to eat and see how much we cows.

12. Football, cricket, rugby
Which in a nutshell shows just how hard it is to define Britishness. The number one sport by paid up membership is fishing. Football is lucrative and has high exposure but its not a sport cherished by all Brits is it? No far from it. Rugby is a sport that divides the nation into Rughby League and Rugby Union. And oh the irony cricket. As a major sport or possibly even as a going concern cricket would have died on its arse long ago without the input of immigrants. For a long time it was test cricket but now short forms of international cricket are generating interest and revenues that support the county grounds and make club cricket something people still have on their radar.

We think we can define Spanishness lets say, because we dont live there and have such a small amount of information to put into an argument. Britishness as we can see is harder for us to agree on because Britain is a diverse place. This is by virtue of its chequred history...which is what makes us such a vibrant country. Strangle multiculturalism, stop diversity and you not only waste energy and goodwill doing so you lose an essential element of Britishness. If you look a little more closely at most countries around the world the same is true.

> but has fundamentally changed the nature of society<

I'm not sure that's true. Many of the Afro-Carribeans around here often seem indistinguishable now from the white middle classes. Their parents maybe more Jamaican than British but gradually I see a sense that many of the things we might loosly term as part of Anglo culture are what they aspire to. Same for the Turkish cypriots and various African immigrants. Yes, what I like is that they often retain a certain connection to where their roots are, but I think that's often mixed with a strong dose of feeling basically British.

The group which I see are still most outside and separate are the Muslims. They have their own faith schools, they appear to mix much less and I certainly think things like the veil contribute to that perception symbolically. But it wouldn't surprise me that within a few decades that they are much more part of the general community, and not so separate.

That's why I think bringing actual laws, about really what I see as something quite minor like the veil, will only increase a sense of alienation and separateness. I can't think of laws being brought in before that specifically target the customs of one ethnic group.

As I argued earlier I think a far more effective strategy long term is to let Muslims have the freedom to do stuff like veil wearing. Not make them see themselves as martyrs, just because we don't like seeing some of their women wearing face masks. You don't see many OTT dreds round here anymore, though I've nothing against them, but you just don't see it. If left alone I think the veil will go the same way in a few years...or at least allow it to drop bit by bit; the noses may at least be on display in a few years

Sorry for my mispelling a word twice I was having to guess which sounded like the correct spelling.
And thanks for determining from that inability to spell a given word that I'm clearly as thick as... A nice demonstration of the tollerance of our nation. (for the record I'm a 1:1 BSC hons degree (with the highest ever percengagte pass mark awarded at my university), and a masters degree, so please don't call me thick).

I don't associate with a single one of those so called common traits or shared culture items on the list. I don't think I know a single person who does.

Having lived in a very small village in rural East anglia, a larger university city/town in East Anglia, in central Manchester, as well as spending a lot of time in the capital, and elsewehre, the one thing you'll notice straight away is the utter lack of any shared values.
Not just a lack between differnt elements within each area, but within each of the eleements within the area.

none of much which really has much to do with the issue of the vail mind.
I'm still unclear as to what the reasoning behind wanting to ban it is? (largely I imagine there is not a real logical set of reasoning behind it, though I'd like to find out waht their justification is of their racism).

>>largely I imagine there is not a real logical set of reasoning behind it, though I'd like to find out waht their justification is of their racism<<

Well, SoRB's antipathy for the veil comes from a torrid experience as an undergrad in Bradford. The question that comes to mind is: has anyone ever, had a good time in Bradford? The locals are annoying and thick, the city itself is a hole and the lights of Leeds and Manchester are close by.

I had the most* fantastic Curry in Bradford, quite some years ago... But really asides the resturant and a pub or two didn't get to see much of the place, but I did get the impression I'd probably seen the best bits of the place...

Depends what you draw from your experiances though... When I was living in Manchester for a year and a half or so, the people I shared with were the most disgusting filthy people I'd ever met (still are now I think of it).. If I'd wanted to I could have described them as I guess various flavours of Indian/asian descent... But they were just students...

I'm a pedant of the highest degree but sometimes when I see someone mock someone else's spelling it makes me wonder how they can be on this site and not be aware that there are often reasons for such spelling errors.

Deb

//

>>there are often reasons for such spelling errors.<<

Yes, there are.

I blame 2legs

This post has been removed.

Bloomin hell that was quickly hidden.

You have to be quick or you miss things these days....

FB

>>Thirdly, and I hope you’re sitting down for this bit, the *French* see how easy it is, hop over the Channel and the clash runs to form again.

They were Norse. Norsemen or Normans.

Can't remember anything yikesable in it

Yeah but they spoke French Jack, and the English still rolled over and waved their legs in the air. Oh the shame of it

HI>>Why do many areas of major cities have areas called Little Germany or Little Italy or Chinatown?

Because then as now, the outgroup populations were concentrated into specific geographic areas.