|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Shrunken anglophone world
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't want to spark off another pond war. In particular I appreciate the wit and wisdom of our transatlantic shipmates. But I think it's a pity (though probably inevitable) that we are deprived of similar contributions from the rest of Europe and indeed the world, simply because of language.
This article made me think. America is big enough, and varied enough, to look after itself (to some extent) . But here in Britain we need to look further for support. Creativity, political vision, theological wisdom are all to be found amongst our fellow-Europeans, but how well do we know them? English people go on package holidays to the Spanish Costas, and even settle there in retirement, without learning a word of Spanish or engaging with the local culture. Middle-class Brits might have holiday homes in France or Italy, but remain as Anglophone enclaves for the most part.
Whereas all of us are aware of the celebrity 'big names' of popular culture, how many of these are not British or American? How well do we know similar figures from France, Italy or Germany? When it comes to politicians, as Martin Kettle remarks, most of us could name more Alaskan politicians than Dutch ones.
When our government (present or previous) wants to pursue a new initiative in, say, social or educational policy, it will send a research team off to the States despite the fact that more relevant data could be found just across the channel or in Scandinavia.
Partly of course this is because of the so-called 'special relationship', and the British inferiority complex now we have lost an Empire. But as Kettle points out, a great deal has to do with language and the sad fact that we are by and large a monoglot nation terrified to open our mouths in anything other than English.
Until the late Middle Ages and the rise of English (not yet British) nationalism/ imperialism, England was firmly part of European culture. Even earlier than that, the sea was not seen as a barrier but a highway for social and cultural interaction.
Does the blame lie with Henry VIII? Or what else lies behind our self-imposed isolation?
[ 05. January 2015, 23:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think the article is rather ignorant. Mr Kettle assumes that the only reason we pay attention to American or Australian rather than French or German politics is because of language, whilst omitting to mention the shared history, culture, politics and social background of Britain and the United States and, particularly, Britain and the Commonwealth.
People in Britain can understand and identify with the concept of an Australian Prime Minister and an Australian Leader of the Opposition in a way that they can't with a Dutch Lijsttrekker. Or not so easily, anyway.
I think Mr Kettle has realised that the Guardian's Weltanschauung and the real world aren't the same thing and this is him throwing his toys out of the pram.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
This is something that I've often thought about - and frequently found a source of frustration.
I encounter it all the time in my field (political science / comparative constitutional design): the tendency is to look to other English-speaking nations and not to continental Europe for ideas and inspiration. That means we are overly-influenced by American concerns, ideologies, and proposals - to the exclusion and neglect of what's going on in Europe. It also means that we let very useful constitutional technologies pass us by (although not in Scotland, because we did it properly in the build up to devolution, and actually looked at how they did things in other European countries - but then Scotland is less anti-European, culturally and psychologically, than England is).
Rejection of European thinking shifts British politics to the market-liberal right in ways that would be quite shocking to many European countries (remember: Walmart could not make a profit in Germany: it was beaten by mom-n-pop stores, because Germany regulates its retail market in ways which just don't fit with the Walmart model).
I don't buy Anglican't argument: A moderately well-informed British person will know what a primary election is, and what the Electoral College is, but that is only because (i) These things are actually reported; and (ii) There is no language barrier. The Dutch concept of a Lijsttrekker is not any more intrinsically difficult to understand.
I put much of it down to post-imperial arrogance, as well as to linguistic laziness(*). Its as if we have nothing to learn. But we have so much to learn.
O Britain, you who rubbish the Europeans and ignore those who have useful things to teach you, how often I have longed to gather your MPs and Civil Servants together, and send you on a fact-finding trip to Copenhagen, Barcelona or Luxembourg City, but you were not willing!
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
When our government (present or previous) wants to pursue a new initiative in, say, social or educational policy, it will send a research team off to the States despite the fact that more relevant data could be found just across the channel or in Scandinavia.
In what way is Scandinavia any more relevant to the UK than America?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
So maybe we should adopt Latin as a pan-European lingua franca?
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Well it's European for a start. And (the 4 Scandinavian countries together) about the same population as Britain. With a much better record of social cohesion and much less of a rich-poor divide, which should be a better example for us than the raw-toothed capitalism of America.
[ETA: reply to Marvin]
[ 20. August 2010, 14:27: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Rejection of European thinking shifts British politics to the market-liberal right in ways that would be quite shocking to many European countries
But would the Guardian-reading left be happy? If we did embrace European thinking in a way that we apparently aren't at the moment*, would we still have a National Health Service (given that people would see insurance-based systems on the continent working better than our own)? And when David Cameron defended his plans for tax breaks for married couples with 'but it's common on the continent' people might say 'he's right, you know, why don't we have over here?'
*I have some doubts that the problem is as bad as Mr Kettle makes out, but that's only a hunch.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
When our government (present or previous) wants to pursue a new initiative in, say, social or educational policy, it will send a research team off to the States despite the fact that more relevant data could be found just across the channel or in Scandinavia.
In what way is Scandinavia any more relevant to the UK than America?
In what way is it any less relevant?- for that is how it is usually regarded in the uK
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Scandinavia...should be a better example for us than the raw-toothed capitalism of America.
Ah, so the only reason is that it better suits your political prejudices.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Only insofar as American capitalism is strongly influenced by geography and history: "Go west young man' and all that. When you've seemingly unlimited resources to exploit, it makes some sort of sense. It doesn't make the same sort of sense in Europe.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Rejection of European thinking shifts British politics to the market-liberal right in ways that would be quite shocking to many European countries
But would the Guardian-reading left be happy? If we did embrace European thinking in a way that we apparently aren't at the moment*, would we still have a National Health Service (given that people would see insurance-based systems on the continent working better than our own)? And when David Cameron defended his plans for tax breaks for married couples with 'but it's common on the continent' people might say 'he's right, you know, why don't we have over here?'
With the greatest respect, Anglican't, that is a pathetic argument. Knowing how our neighbours tackle similar problems doesn't mean that we have to adopt their solutions. At present we don't know very much about it. We've all read lots of newspaper articles about Obama's health care plans, and have a better idea of how things work there than we do about France, Italy or even Scotland.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
When I lived in the Czech Republic, I remember the front page news on three consecutive days was: "Tomorrow: America decides." "Obama or McCain? America decides today." "It's Obama."
The failings of Sarah Palin were minutely dissected. The New Yorker cartoon that was accused of comparing Obama to a monkey was front page news. They were reporting the Tea Partiers before they became famous.
The only other country's politics that got comparable levels of coverage was Slovakia, which is a bit of a special case.
So it's not just the British who are obsessed with the Americans.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When I lived in the Czech Republic, I remember the front page news on three consecutive days was: "Tomorrow: America decides." "Obama or McCain? America decides today." "It's Obama."
The failings of Sarah Palin were minutely dissected. The New Yorker cartoon that was accused of comparing Obama to a monkey was front page news. They were reporting the Tea Partiers before they became famous.
The only other country's politics that got comparable levels of coverage was Slovakia, which is a bit of a special case.
So it's not just the British who are obsessed with the Americans.
Good point. The relative power of America within the world is a significant factor.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
With the greatest respect, Anglican't, that is a pathetic argument. Knowing how our neighbours tackle similar problems doesn't mean that we have to adopt their solutions.
But isn't that what you're saying? When you say
quote:
When our government (present or previous) wants to pursue a new initiative in, say, social or educational policy, it will send a research team off to the States despite the fact that more relevant data could be found just across the channel or in Scandinavia
and suggest looking to Scandinavia because their way of living is a 'better example' aren't you suggesting that we emulate these countries or at least seek inspiration from them? All I'm saying is that doing something like that might actually have consequences that some supporters of such an idea might not actually like.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
With the greatest respect, Anglican't, that is a pathetic argument. Knowing how our neighbours tackle similar problems doesn't mean that we have to adopt their solutions.
But isn't that what you're saying? When you say
quote:
When our government (present or previous) wants to pursue a new initiative in, say, social or educational policy, it will send a research team off to the States despite the fact that more relevant data could be found just across the channel or in Scandinavia
and suggest looking to Scandinavia because their way of living is a 'better example' aren't you suggesting that we emulate these countries or at least seek inspiration from them? All I'm saying is that doing something like that might actually have consequences that some supporters of such an idea might not actually like.
I don't understand "more relevant data" to be a value judgment about whether Scandinavia has done better things, it's an assessment of the similarity of the basic factors such as demographics. What works in a country the size, spread and make-up of the USA doesn't always work in a country the size, spread and make-up of the UK. I understood Angloid's point to be that Scandinavia is more similar to the UK on many measures.
Beats me where Australia is supposed to look for comparisons, though. Highly urbanised combined with an extremely low population density. Canada is probably the best match.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159
|
Posted
I'm really torn on this one. I have a great deal of time for America and Americans. But on the many times I have visited the USA I always find myself thinking that it is so familiar (in part because of TV shows, films and so on) but equally despite the same language it is also very different to the UK.
Health care and welfare provision is an obvious difference. But I believe from my experiences many Americans (though not all of course) have lower education standards than us.
Like or not (and I know there are a few Euro sceptics around these boards) we are European. Having visited France, the Netherlands and Germany on many occasions as well Germany and the Netherlands always feel familiar (that is a bit like the UK) though France has a different feel.
It's not a language issue. (Though English is very widely spoken in the Netherlands.) Maybe the Netherlands and Germany just feel more Anglo Saxon?
--------------------
Benny Diction
"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn
Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't understand "more relevant data" to be a value judgment about whether Scandinavia has done better things, it's an assessment of the similarity of the basic factors such as demographics. What works in a country the size, spread and make-up of the USA doesn't always work in a country the size, spread and make-up of the UK. I understood Angloid's point to be that Scandinavia is more similar to the UK on many measures.
Oh, I see. It could be. But even if it is, I'm not sure how relevant that is. For example, when thinking about how to deal with long-term unemployment the Conservatives in Britain looked at, and were impressed by, how Wisconsin dealt with the problem. Now the United States might be massive, but somewhere like Wisconsin or even California isn't. I don't see why a state-wide initiative in one of the United States wouldn't be of interest to a politician in a country like Britain who wants to apply it to the whole of England and Wales or to the UK.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Of course it would be of interest. But the point is that you should cast your net pretty widely. Indeed, in the instance you cite, there wasn't even an appreciation of the variety of models within the USA- hence Prof Alan Deacon's comment about British welfare policymakers' America consisting of New York in one corner, California in another, and in between 'the continent of Wisconsin'.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Seems a fair point. I appreciate the need to cast a wide net.
To go back to the original article by Mr Kettle, I get the impression of an anti-democratic, dirigiste line of thought, almost 'these people need to be told to make the right decisions', when the fact is that, with the full splendour of the internet before them, they have voted with their feet and opted to go with the cultures that they like and identify with rather than the places that Mr Kettle and his ilk think they should identify with.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Beats me where Australia is supposed to look for comparisons, though. Highly urbanised combined with an extremely low population density. Canada is probably the best match.
[Tangent]
I'm in the UK. When reading journals + books about children's social work, I've noticed that there are some other seeming similarities between Canada and Australia - original native population not treated well by colonisers, followed by significant social problems amongst native population, followed by social workers from colonising population trying to work out best ways to help, but sometimes making things much worse, etc, etc. I haven't researched this at all - it's just something I've noticed - you get social-work articles from Canada and Australia discussing these issues, which simply don't have a direct UK equivalent (so no UK-based articles about them). (I also haven't seen any articles from the USA discussing such issues, though I assume some social workers in the US must be discussing them - could only speculate on why I haven't seen US-based articles.) [/Tangent]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Well it's European for a start.
Proximity isn't the same as relevance.
quote:
And (the 4 Scandinavian countries together) about the same population as Britain.
Nor is size - I'm sure there are plenty of countries with roughly the same population as the UK, but that we'd never dream of taking advice from.
quote:
With a much better record of social cohesion and much less of a rich-poor divide, which should be a better example for us than the raw-toothed capitalism of America.
That does sound awfully like what I suspected it was, namely the desire of some left-wingers for us to follow the more left-wing Europe rather than the more right-wing America.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[
quote:
With a much better record of social cohesion and much less of a rich-poor divide, which should be a better example for us than the raw-toothed capitalism of America.
That does sound awfully like what I suspected it was, namely the desire of some left-wingers for us to follow the more left-wing Europe rather than the more right-wing America.
As opposed to the desire of some right-wingers for us to follow the more right-wing America rather than the more left-wing Europe?
[ 20. August 2010, 15:46: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
As opposed to the desire of some right-wingers for us to follow the more right-wing America rather than the more left-wing Europe?
For my part, I'd rather we stayed to the right of Europe and to the left of America. You know, the much-derided but perfectly viable bridge-between-the-continents position...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It took living outside Europe for a year or two for me to realise that, despite the language difference, we actually are culturally closer to Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands and Belgium (and perhaps Germany) than we are to the USA.
Not because I found out more about those places but because Americans started to seem very foreign and exotic in some ways. We get so much US TV and film that I think we mostly come to delude ourselves that they are more like us than they really are. to think of them as a sort of English abroad. That might be still a little true of Australia and New Zealand, but not the USA.
There's degrees of foreigness. From my point of view home is the South East of England (so by definition that's not foreign at all) and my family are from the north of England and Scotland (so again I feel quite at home there). The west of England is just a tiny bit foreign, as is the midlands. Its like where I live but it is clearly not where I live. Wales a little bit more odd than that, and Ireland a little bit more than that. I've never been to Australia or New Zealand but the Australians I meet here (no doubt a biased sample) seem a little bit more different from the English than the Irish or Welsh do.
Belgians come next. Not weird at all. Then perhaps the Norwegians and Danes and Dutch. By the time you get to Swedes things are starting to feel quite strange - and then the Germans and Americans after that. The French of course aren't like us at all ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
As opposed to the desire of some right-wingers for us to follow the more right-wing America rather than the more left-wing Europe?
For my part, I'd rather we stayed to the right of Europe and to the left of America. You know, the much-derided but perfectly viable bridge-between-the-continents position...
Whihc is perhaps viable as you say (although not my own preference)- as long as it doesn't turn into the 'falling between two stools' position.
BTW ken, where are you on Canadians? the ones I've met, and the ones on the Ship, are certainly more like us than Americans generally are- and perhaps also than Australians are, too. (Of course, all this is wild generalisation.)
[ 20. August 2010, 16:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
British politics seem to me to fall across the same fault-lines as the rest of Western European countries. We have the same arguments about privatisation, part-privatisation (e.g. PFI), trades unions, university funding, the integration of immigrants. Granted the outcome of the debate may be different but the underlying debate is relatively similar.
By contrast American political debate seems alien to me from my outside perspective. The American left feel relatively "European" but - however much they may dislike taxes or state healthcare - it's rare to see Europeans arguing that taxation is actually theft, and I cannot imagine a European believing that state healthcare provision is a form of high treason.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When I lived in the Czech Republic, I remember the front page news on three consecutive days was: "Tomorrow: America decides." "Obama or McCain? America decides today." "It's Obama."
I bow to your much greater knowledge of the Czech Republic, Ricardus. But might it not be the case that it, along with the other 'iron curtain' countries, has been cut off for so long from the rest of Europe that they have a different perspective from the west? Plus the fact that admiration for American capitalism is likely to be much stronger among peoples who suffered under the Soviet regime than it is among those who have evolved their own form of social democratic capitalism.
That's not to deny that American news can loom large in the news agenda of other European countries, though I doubt if it does so to the extent it does here.
I said in the OP I wasn't trying to start a pond war, and I'd be more interested in discussing why the British are so reluctant to learn other languages or engage with mainland European culture. Chickens and eggs come to mind of course.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
For example, when thinking about how to deal with long-term unemployment the Conservatives in Britain looked at, and were impressed by, how Wisconsin dealt with the problem. Now the United States might be massive, but somewhere like Wisconsin or even California isn't.
The population and GSP of Wisconsin are 8% the size of Britain's GDP. California's population is 60% and its economy 85% of Britain.
Based on scale, California would be a better comparison. Politically likely as well, though it would not necessarily serve the purposes of Conservatives.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It took living outside Europe for a year or two for me to realise that, despite the language difference, we actually are culturally closer to Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands and Belgium (and perhaps Germany) than we are to the USA.
I agree for the most part, however wonder if part of this might be expectations. The USA came from, in large part, England and do share, mostly, a language. So the expectation may be for commonality, at least more so than from mainland Europe. It would then be a natural tendency to notice the differences, USA and Britain, and the similarities, Europe and Britain.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
British politics seem to me to fall across the same fault-lines as the rest of Western European countries. We have the same arguments about privatisation, part-privatisation (e.g. PFI), trades unions, university funding, the integration of immigrants. Granted the outcome of the debate may be different but the underlying debate is relatively similar.
By contrast American political debate seems alien to me from my outside perspective. The American left feel relatively "European" but - however much they may dislike taxes or state healthcare - it's rare to see Europeans arguing that taxation is actually theft, and I cannot imagine a European believing that state healthcare provision is a form of high treason.
You are correct that British politics, like European politics, lack the cut-throat strand of Lockean anti-Statism so beloved of the American right.
Beyond that, though, I think there are major differences between Britain and the continent. British politics lacks some of the major cleavages which have marked continental European politics since the 19th century, such as the secular-religious cleavage and (until recently, with the rise of the SNP and Plaid Cymru) the centre-periphery cleavage. Britain, in contrast to most continental European countries, developed two-party politics with alternating one-party rule (at least in the period from 1945 to 2010). We lack, on the whole, the moderating experience of perpetual coalitions. Instead we have swung from left to right: we nationalised the steel industry, privatised it, re-nationalised it, and finally re-privatised it - something unthinkable in most of Europe. Also, the British right is dominated by a market-orientated party rather than by a Catholic-orientated party: this makes a big difference to how certain policies, not least economic, welfare and family policies, are developed. On the other hand, there has been, in Britain, no strong communist party: whereas communists have been a relatively strong force in French, Italian and even Swedish politics.
All this probably has more to do with historical contingency than the transmission of ideas, but does nevertheless mean that the ideas motivating a continental politician or civil servant will be very different from those motivating his or her British counterpart.
The real elephant in the room is the difference between Civil Law and Common Law, and how that shapes no only the size and activity of the State, but also ways of thinking and approaches to problem solving. To a typical continental European, the role of the State is to achieve the common goals of the State operating under Civil Law, to manage the common life of the community. That is its default position, and it is an interventionist one. To a typical English-speaking person, living under Common Law, the role of the State is to protect private rights, especially private property rights. That is an essentially non-interventionist position. Also, a Civilian, when faced with a problem, asks "What is the most rational solution?", a Common Lawyer asks "What has been done before?" A Civilian thinks in general terms, which lead him or her to the particular; a Common Lawyer thinks in particulars, from which the general is derived.
Basically, we'd be a lot better off if we'd had the Code Napoleon.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
RW. I was nodding in agreement until the final sentence.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Incidentally much of the reason why EU rules seem to be so absurdly applied in the UK, compared to just about every other EU country, is also due to the difference between Civil Law and Common Law.
The rest of Europe laughs at us for the way in which we apply EU law - but we are "forced" to do so by the way our legal system works. The Common Law allows little scope for common sense and latitude, and tends to produce strange precedents which are difficult to get out of - to say nothing of the shear uncertainty of the system.
[ 20. August 2010, 19:03: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I thought that there was the problem of 'gold plating' too, where civil servants say 'we've got this directive to enforce, let's see how stringent we can make it'. I'm not sure whether that's the fault of the common law system or British civil servants being over zealous. Given the bureaucratic mentality, I suspect the latter.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
by Radicalwhig The real elephant in the room is the difference between Civil Law and Common Law, and how that shapes no only the size and activity of the State, but also ways of thinking and approaches to problem solving. To a typical continental European, the role of the State is to achieve the common goals of the State operating under Civil Law, to manage the common life of the community. That is its default position, and it is an interventionist one. To a typical English-speaking person, living under Common Law, the role of the State is to protect private rights, especially private property rights.
I think it is possible to have a common-law state that operates to advance what RadicalWhig describes as civil law principles. It seems a rather good description of the British (and certainly the New Zealand) state after the Second World War.
I would make a slightly different point: under constitutional principles, the State in the UK is essentially like a private person with some additional powers: UK constitutional law contains no fundamental principles as to what a state should do but what it can or can't do, and perhaps that is what RadicalWhig should be driving at.
As for the opening post: I think Angloid is indulging in a rather excessive amount of hand-wringing. American culture predominates here and in Australia more than it does on the Continent. This is more likely to have nothing to do with British insularity and everything to do with American cultural predominance. Additionally, I'm sure Angloid will be pleased to know that it is quite normal for British research teams to come down here to, for example, study educational trends and other administrative matters. I understand, for example, that PAYE was invented here. Also this:-
quote:
Until the late Middle Ages and the rise of English (not yet British) nationalism/ imperialism, England was firmly part of European culture.
is an odd thing to say given that American culture is essentially European too, as is obvious to most people who have been to culturally non-European parts of the globe. How Britain has been 'removed' from European culture is not clear to me.
quote:
Even earlier than that, the sea was not seen as a barrier but a highway for social and cultural interaction.
Well quite, and I guess it remains so.
And I think there is no denying the importance of having a language in common. Some of us, contrary to Angloid, might be more inclined to think that continental European countries are on the whole more insular than Britain, because they do not look beyond the European continent.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I would make a slightly different point: under constitutional principles, the State in the UK is essentially like a private person with some additional powers: UK constitutional law contains no fundamental principles as to what a state should do but what it can or can't do, and perhaps that is what RadicalWhig should be driving at.
Yes, I think that expresses it well.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Incidentally much of the reason why EU rules seem to be so absurdly applied in the UK, compared to just about every other EU country, is also due to the difference between Civil Law and Common Law.
Hi RadicalWhig - I find this point very interesting indeed, and I would be grateful if you could expand upon it.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I bow to your much greater knowledge of the Czech Republic, Ricardus. But might it not be the case that it, along with the other 'iron curtain' countries, has been cut off for so long from the rest of Europe that they have a different perspective from the west?
When you talk about 'Europe' what do you mean? When I think about Europe I think of a continent that extends from the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula to the Urals (geographically) but culturally probably to the Polish - White Russian border (I've always thought of Russia herself as a kind of special case). This would place countries like the Czech Republic in central Europe.
When you talk about 'cut off' I'm wondering whether you say 'Europe' but really mean 'France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, the Iberian Peninsula and Scandinavia'.
This in turn makes me think that you would really like Britain to be more like these countries. That's a valid viewpoint, of course, but it strikes me that complaining about our ties to Europe is really just a smokescreen for a different frustration about the course our country has taken.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
We're in danger of drifting off the point, which is about language. Mostly an English problem ISTM: the Welsh (at least the younger element) are more or less bilingual; Scotland has always been more European-minded even if still largely anglophone.
Yet in contrast to most educated continentals, we are reduced to gibbering stupidity when trying to speak another language. And in contrast to the usual self-effacing English modesty, we come over uncharacteristically arrogant and expect others to understand our shouted English commands.
I know all the reasons such as 'English is the lingua franca of the world' or 'English is the obvious second language for most Europeans; which one should we learn?' But when you have French, Spanish, German and Italian people coming over here for high-powered jobs which demand a second language, because we haven't got enough English people with the necessary skills, something is wrong. The last government made foreign language learning optional beyond the age of 14: clearly an unwise move, but in view of the shortage of effective teachers maybe the only possible one.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Cross-posted with Anglican't: a challenging question and you may be onto something. Maybe because I don't know Eastern Europe.
Nevertheless I was only hazarding a guess about why the Czech Republic (as mentioned by Ricardus) might be more pro-American. I might be completely wrong. In any case, while they might be more inclined towards America politically, I'd be surprised if they were any closer to America culturally than say the Netherlands or Italy. France I think (as others have hinted) is a special case as culturally they seem different from anyone else.
And again language might have something to do with it. Speakers of minority languages like Czech, or Danish, or Dutch have always seen the need to be fluent in another major European language, and usually that is of course English.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
We're in danger of drifting off the point, which is about language. Mostly an English problem ISTM: the Welsh (at least the younger element) are more or less bilingual; Scotland has always been more European-minded even if still largely anglophone.
Not to any great extent (having lived in Scotland myself) and IMHO motivated by the desire to be unlike the English.
quote:
Yet in contrast to most educated continentals, we are reduced to gibbering stupidity when trying to speak another language.
This is a problem for English speakers worldwide. The only exceptions come from places like South Africa, where those who speak English as a first language really have to learn another one.
It is not a peculiarly British problem.
It is caused, so I understand, by the comparatively unusual way in which the English language it taught in Anglophone nations.
quote:
And in contrast to the usual self-effacing English modesty, we come over uncharacteristically arrogant and expect others to understand our shouted English commands.
Perhaps this is a throwback to the days when a pith helmet acted as a sort of Babel Fish.
More seriously, perhaps this is true in Ibiza where British people are generally drunk. But, once again, the problem there appears to be other than a British cultural trait. The problem is alcohol.
quote:
I know all the reasons such as 'English is the lingua franca of the world' or 'English is the obvious second language for most Europeans; which one should we learn?' But when you have French, Spanish, German and Italian people coming over here for high-powered jobs which demand a second language, because we haven't got enough English people with the necessary skills, something is wrong. The last government made foreign language learning optional beyond the age of 14: clearly an unwise move, but in view of the shortage of effective teachers maybe the only possible one.
Why learn another European language at all? Most of the world is outside Europe.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
And in contrast to the usual self-effacing English modesty, we come over uncharacteristically arrogant and expect others to understand our shouted English commands.
Perhaps this is a throwback to the days when a pith helmet acted as a sort of Babel Fish.
More seriously, perhaps this is true in Ibiza where British people are generally drunk. But, once again, the problem there appears to be other than a British cultural trait. The problem is alcohol.
Not always. Try standing behind a middle-aged, obviously sober, middle-class English couple in a French or Italian village shop. And cringe.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Perhaps. But it's easy to find examples of people from all sorts of places behaving rudely. It's also easy to find surveys naming various nationalities as the worst tourists overall. This one, for example, had the French last, and the British quite far up. I make no claims about the survey's accuracy. My point is simply that the oft-made claim that British insularity is demonstrated by British behaviour abroad is not all demonstrable.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
RadicalWhig:
You're wrong about the Civil Code. There is an excellent test case for your hypothesis: Quebec. It has its own Code Civil, first written in 1866 and updated in 1994. Every other province in Canada uses English common law. It really hasn't made a difference economically or politically by itself. Quebec was Canada's most conservative and right-wing province until the 1960's, now it's our most liberal and left-wing.
Until the 1960's the Quebec Government was one of the most minimalist and market-oriented in Canada. Even in the age before the Welfare State it was a bastion of "small government" by the standards of the day.
The Quebec Civil Code, being written in 1866 had a deep emphasis on individual freedom of contract, if anything it was profoundly individualistic.
Try again then.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Cross-posted with Anglican't: a challenging question and you may be onto something. Maybe because I don't know Eastern Europe.
Nevertheless I was only hazarding a guess about why the Czech Republic (as mentioned by Ricardus) might be more pro-American. I might be completely wrong. In any case, while they might be more inclined towards America politically, I'd be surprised if they were any closer to America culturally than say the Netherlands or Italy. France I think (as others have hinted) is a special case as culturally they seem different from anyone else.
And again language might have something to do with it. Speakers of minority languages like Czech, or Danish, or Dutch have always seen the need to be fluent in another major European language, and usually that is of course English.
I raise the point for two reasons (and both or neither may apply to you).
First, some people seem to talk about 'Europe' as if the attitudes or way of doing things on the continent are homogeneous when of course they aren't. I don't think the Poles are any less European than the French but sometimes are treated as they are. I think what is sometimes called the 'European Social Model' really only covers about half the continent and to suggest otherwise is rather unfair on the rest.
Secondly, people tend to confuse Europe and the European Union. I rather like Europe and Europeans. I'm much, much less keen on the EU. There were a lot of things that Tony Blair said that got me incensed but one of the worst was when he said that Kosovo is 'on the edge of Europe' (this was when he was about to bomb Serbia). Kosovo is in no such place - it is at least 500 miles from the edge of Europe (if you can say that the Bosphorus is one of the edges).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
You're quite right, Anglican't. My point was that there is likely to be a significant difference between ex-Communist Europe and the rest. Not that either part was more or less European than the other.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Berwickshire
Shipmate
# 15761
|
Posted
It is always fascinating to see what English-speakers, UK or US, know about language.
It is a tad insulting to call Czech a "minority language". Minor perhaps. A minority language is one spoken in an enclave within some other linguistic community: a Hungarian-speaking village in Slovakia, Russian in Lithuania or Welsh in the UK. In these cases the minority often have to know the dominant language to get by. Czech in the Czech Republic is hardly a minority language.
It is odd to take it for granted that English is unquestionably dominant. There is a fair bit of Russian and German about and probably more common than English when it comes to doing business. The name of the game is to be polyglot and to appear to get by in the customer's language. And that is an idea which goes way back before the Socialist interlude.
Modern Foreign languages are not for the English, who in general understand their own language no better than they learn another. Where English speakers struggle with 'would have' and 'would of' not to mention 'potatoe's', the typical Slovak knows his genitive from his plurals and will place his apostrophe unerringly. There may well be a future where the educated speakers of English within the United States of Europe will mostly be on the continent while the insular natives grunt at each other in a minority dialect. Latin and Italian all over again.
Et trabem non vides?
Posts: 57 | From: Eastern Europe | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Not that I have a canoe in this race, but there has been plenty of talk on this forum about how English people are like totally different from Welsh people and Scottish people, and how Americans are totally not like Canadians at ALL. And NEVER confuse Irish people and English people. Now Americans and English people are way different. Far more different than Belgians and Swedes!
Where DID this preoccupation come from anyway?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not that I have a canoe in this race, but there has been plenty of talk on this forum about how English people are like totally different from Welsh people and Scottish people, and how Americans are totally not like Canadians at ALL. And NEVER confuse Irish people and English people. Now Americans and English people are way different. Far more different than Belgians and Swedes!
Where DID this preoccupation come from anyway?
Zach
From prejudice?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Partly of course this is because of the so-called 'special relationship', and the British inferiority complex now we have lost an Empire. But as Kettle points out, a great deal has to do with language and the sad fact that we are by and large a monoglot nation terrified to open our mouths in anything other than English.
I think language and culture are inextricably linked. Generally, English, American, Australian, Canadian and NZers spring from the same cultural heritage many generations ago. Sharing a language has meant that we have contintued to learn from each other and form special relationships and ways of looking at the world that others have not.
Let's not forget that Europe has been embroiled in wars and it's only been in the last 40 years that there's any sort of unity.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
There are outlook and attitudinal differences that separate the Englsih and Americans from one another (and no doubt other British likewise from Americans, but I feel most competent focusing on the English-American split). I find these differences difficult to put one's finger on concisely, but as a left wing American I still perceive significant differences between myself and left wing English whom I know -- and I'm talking here of dispositions surrounding a basic orientation toward social democratic/socialist politics. I actually find it rather preposterous that the English or the British generally can find much to apply from American public sector procedures and systems of various sorts. As an American-trained psychologist practising in the NHS I eventually felt that I was neither fish nor fowl - neither having a typically British outlook on various issues of the approach to mental health treatment, nor any longer subscribing to my formerly strongly American views toward treatment (this cultural displacement has endured even after my return to America). I mention this because cross-fertilisation of ideas is no doubt a good thing, but at the same time you can't simply pick up a system and approach from one side of the pond and transplant it to the other side. The differences are based in layers of history, national culture, certain socially reinforced aspects of personality functioning, etc.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
