Thread: "As a Christian" preamble to opinions. Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005672
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I have just been moved to write to the Guardian about a letter beginning this way.
It may be that it isn't every time I see or hear this opening to a letter, or a post somewhere, or a phone-in item, the author goes on to pronounce something which I not only do not agree with, but strongly do not agree with. It is not usually addressing matters laid out in the creed, for example. It is usually, when I notice it, proceeding to spell out why some opinion, or group holding an opinion, is really beyond the Pale. (You can probably guess which subjects most frequently follow - expired equines.)
It isn't something helpful, like "As a Christian, I find it useful to spend some part of the day in silence, meditating". But maybe I just don't notice when it is.
The writer holds, as a Christian, that an unelected monarch is not the proper person to be head of state. (A position which I suspect he will not find in the KJV.) He further meditated on the unsuitability of the heir to the throne because of his lack of a high moral character and sincere Christian faith.
I seem to recall something about not judging, but I'm not so good at chapter and verse as most here.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
"As a leveller," I could understand...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
As a decent human being, I agree.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
"As a Christian" is a version of "the bible tells me so" for the illiterate. And is equally valid.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
When my ex and I went to mandatory counseling during the divorce process, the counselor asked why he did not want a divorce. He couldn't tell her the truth, that he didn't want to let me have the half of our community property to which I was entitled. He also didn't lie and say that it was because he loved me.
So he answered that "As a Christian, I don't believe in divorce" in his typical holier-than-thou voice. (The look she gave him was priceless!) Needless to say, Mr. I-don't-believe-in-divorce was the one who remarried as soon as the divorce went through.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"As a leveller," I could understand...
Or even "As a Baptist", although many Baptists today know nothing of their Republican ancestry!
ISTM that using the phrase "As a Christian" could either simply be a defining statement, i.e. "This is the background that I'm coming from"; indeed I've used it in this way myself. But it can also - and often does mean - "I'm about to tell you the only proper Christian position", which isn't quite the same thing!
PS I've now read the letter, and it seems to me that the writer is making an unintentional non-sequitur. Although I happen to agree with his basic sentiment, one can't say that Republican views are automatically commensurate with being a Christian.
[ 18. March 2017, 16:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'd argue that being a UK Christian and a republican is very much a minority sport.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think that people are looking for identity, particularly the white British (I can't speak how this phrase is used elsewhere) and so latch onto "as a Christian" as a marker of identity to distinguish themselves from all the other callers, letter writers, tweeters etc.
Of course, this shows mind-numbing stupidity because there is almost nothing that Christians have in common with each other and so invoking the identity tells the listener absolutely nothing at all about the person.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
You want to try 'As a born again Christian' in conversation. No better way to clear a room.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
You want to try 'As a born again Christian' in conversation. No better way to clear a room.
And hardly confusing as to why.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
I have tried countering it with, "As a Christian from a country at one time deeply rooted in the monastic tradition, I am accustomed to a far higher standard of brewing than you have here". But it just confuses Americans.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
mr cheesy
Do 'white British' people go around saying 'As a Christian....'? I wouldn't have thought that was very common these days.
Christians do disagree on a whole range of things, although the stats apparently show that they're a bit more likely to hold certain opinions rather than others.
Moreover, I also wonder if religious decline in the British context has actually reduced a lot of the diversity of views among practising Christians the country. On social issues there's likely to be more and more agreement, although the family remains a source of division, I suppose. (As for doctrinal matters, no one seems too bothered to emphasise those in public.)
Without reading his letter I'm assuming that the OP's guy in the Guardian was trying to emphasise the fact that you can be a Christian and not a monarchist - probably as a challenge to the newspaper's atheist readers who might assume that all Christians are right wingers who adore the Royal Family.
[ 18. March 2017, 17:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mr cheesy
Do 'white British' people go around saying 'As a Christian....'? I wouldn't have thought that was very common these days.
I've only ever heard or seen people using the phrase when they're white and coming from a very Evangelical position. Even non-white evangelicals don't seem to say it.
quote:
Christians do disagree on a whole range of things, although the stats apparently show that they're a bit more likely to hold certain opinions rather than others.
Quite so, but if the phone-in is about, I don't know, increasing Value Added Tax then it is very unlikely that prefacing your contribution with "as a Christian" is really telling anyone else anything about you and your position in the debate. That's all I was saying.
quote:
Moreover, I also wonder if religious decline in the British context has actually reduced a lot of the diversity of views among practising Christians the country. On social issues there's likely to be more and more agreement, although the family remains a source of division, I suppose. (As for doctrinal matters, no one seems too bothered to emphasise those in public.)
Certain types of Christian seem to think it is their responsibility to be seen in public giving the biblical line (ie their own idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity as divine revelation for everyone) on various topics. Most other Christians do not see this as their role and so even if they contribute to phone-ins are unlikely to do so under the banner of "as a Christian".
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suppose that, as a Christian, I should feel attracted to the Fifth Monarchy position rather than the Levellers, as a suitable ground for my rather vague republican feelings.
It was the sniping at Charles that grated, I think. But I was primed to find something objectionable, by all the others I have heard before.
And, somehow, I always hear "born again" in the phrase, even if not actually spelled out.
[ 18. March 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
"As a Christian" could be used to explain that this is the reason behind my position. In truth, as is pointed out, it is used to say "All Christians believe this" and if you don't you are not a real Christian.
And of all the people not fit to be head of state, there is a PM and a president I can think of with rather less capability. The monarch is, IMO, quite suitable as head of state. And as a Quaker, I really don't give a shit who is head of the church I left.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
"As a Christian" can be topped only by "I forgive you as a Christian" for pure annoyingness. It's certainly a good signal to quit listening, change the channel, or turn the page.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
"As a Christian" can be topped only by "I forgive you as a Christian" for pure annoyingness. It's certainly a good signal to quit listening, change the channel, or turn the page.
Also, when someone puts on a sicky-sweet smile, and in a sicky-sweet voice says "I'll pray for you."
Yes, I appreciate all the prayers I can get, but that's just a passive aggressive response.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
"That's nice. Ill make your effigy in clay and stick it with pins."
"You pray for me. You need to pray more".
"Thank you for your forgiveness. Now, if you just shove it where the son doesn't shine, I will continue doing those things which I know you hate".
"And I forgive you. You can't help it that God made you such an arrogant, unpleasant person with no shred of decency".
"I'll pray for you to. I pray to Cthulu, of course..."
"As a Christian, I wish you would shut the actual fuck up."
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The writer holds, as a Christian, that an unelected monarch is not the proper person to be head of state. (A position which I suspect he will not find in the KJV.)
1 Samuel 8. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
The introduction "As a Christian..." is quite useful. It usually means I needn't bother reading anything that comes after it, lest I expose myself to Foam Mouthed Rambling Imbecile Virus.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I have tried countering it with, "As a Christian from a country at one time deeply rooted in the monastic tradition, I am accustomed to a far higher standard of brewing than you have here". But it just confuses Americans.
Or makes us think you should back up your empty words with open bottles.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Preach it, my suds- loving brother. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The introduction "As a Christian..." is quite useful. It usually means I needn't bother reading anything that comes after it, lest I expose myself to Foam Mouthed Rambling Imbecile Virus.
I dunno. I have used the phrase occasionally when I have criticized the behavior/ teachings of right wing religious folk, for instance. "As a Christian, I don't believe in a teacher leading children in prayer at public school, because I believe God is not honored by coerced expressions of faith." Like that.
In such case, what I am trying to say is, don't hide behind the cross, because you'll just run into me.
[ 19. March 2017, 04:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I guess that that usage would cause serious confusion as their brains would come up with "it does not compute". But I can think of situations where it would appeal to me!
And you remind me of the occasion when I was taking assembly, and introduced the prayer section, which I did by asking the children to think of their own prayers in silence, and did not tellt hem to close their eyes and put their hands together, nor police their attitudes (deliberately, since I recalled a teacher in my own childhood proclaiming "someone did not have their eyes closed during the prayer" and my consequent utter contempt for the woman, who clearly didn't herself - I wasn't going to go there). And a colleague burst out of her classroom and accosted one little mite and told him loudly to close his eyes and pray, thus completely shattering the state of mind I had worked towards.
I know that God wasn't keen on Israel getting involved with kings, but I specified the KJ version as I have gathered that the said James was keen that the translation under his patronage shoould bolster his claim to divine right.
[ 19. March 2017, 07:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Might tweet a link to this thread to The Donald. If he were to start his ramblings with "As a POTUS....." it would make it easier to auto-filter them out.
Also, the phrase "As a Christian" looks like a candidate for inclusion in the sermon version of bullshit bingo.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
don't hide behind the cross, because you'll just run into me.
Ooh, I like that!
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
Much more often than "As a Christian...", I hear "As a teacher...", or "As a scientist...", or "As a lawyer..."
I just take them to be advice of any bias in the following statements. Of course, they are more likely intending it to mean they speak with some authority.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How would it sound Shroedinger's Cat (or twat), if someone said, 'As a non-Quaker I don't really give a shit what those self-righteous so-called Friends do in their heretickal conventicles'?
These things cut both ways.
As it happens, I am interested in what the Quakers do. But not when they get arsey about everyone else. None of us are immune from that tendency, of course.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How would it sound Shroedinger's Cat (or twat), if someone said, 'As a non-Quaker I don't really give a shit what those self-righteous so-called Friends do in their heretickal conventicles'?
Fine. I don't have a problem with that. But you missed the real point - it was the church I left. It is not that I think I am better (or Quakers are better), just that it no longer concerns me. The arguments about the role of the monarchy in the church. Because I no longer care - and because I used to.
** Side note. I know I am very pro-Quaker at the moment. Sorry. It is not that I think the Quakers have it right in all things. It is just that I have a new perspective on things. It is a more positive and more helpful (for me) perspective on life.
So naturally, it comes through a lot. Sorry.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No need to apologise, he said Purgatorially. It's only natural for you to be pro-Quaker or pro whatever else you might have moved onto. I'd be the same if I went from one tradition to another.
Thing is, though, not all Anglicans - even in the CofE - are that bothered about the Royal Family - and you may even find a few closet republicans in CofE churches ... Although indifference rather than an anti-royalist view would be more common than an outright anti-monarchist stance.
Plenty of Anglicans I know are pretty hazy as to who their Bishop is, let alone anything else.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As far as the Quakers go, I'm pretty positive about the Friends - even though I'd lean more heavily on creedal statements and 'outward forms' than they'd be comfortable with. I can see where they are coming from and what they are getting at but from where I'm 'at' I don't see anything there that one couldn't pick up elsewhere if one were so inclined - contemplative prayer, meditation and concerns about social justice and so on aren't an exclusively Quaker thing - and they aren't claiming exclusivity on those things either, of course.
I know a few people who are feeling drawn towards the Quaker Way and I'm pleased for them and wish them well if they go down that route. I've got my interaction with Quakers but I'm not sure I could be one - whereas I could see myself in one or t'other of the historic Churches - given my sense of history and interest in liturgy, iconography and so on ... Although I wouldn't want to get all hobbyist about those aspects. Means to an end, not ends in themselves.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I used to know somehow who prefaced almost everything he said with "As a Quaker...", even when the group to whom he was talking didn't have the slightest interest in Quakers and were much more likely to be receptive to "I think this because of this Quaker principle.."
I haven't thought about him for years, I wonder what happened to him.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No need to apologise, he said Purgatorially. It's only natural for you to be pro-Quaker or pro whatever else you might have moved onto. I'd be the same if I went from one tradition to another.
Thing is, though, not all Anglicans - even in the CofE - are that bothered about the Royal Family - and you may even find a few closet republicans in CofE churches ... Although indifference rather than an anti-royalist view would be more common than an outright anti-monarchist stance.
Plenty of Anglicans I know are pretty hazy as to who their Bishop is, let alone anything else.
You speak as if there's something, beyond accidents of history, monarchist about the CofE. But if it's the Church of England, it's as much the Church of us republicans as anyone else, surely? I mean, I know some monarchists do seem to assume that everyone shares their views, I know, (I particularly object to the singing of God Save the Queen on Remembrance Sunday, as if remembrance and monarchism are related concepts, which for me they are not), but I don't think it's expected to be one, is it?
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
"As a Christian" can be topped only by "I forgive you as a Christian" for pure annoyingness. It's certainly a good signal to quit listening, change the channel, or turn the page.
Or, courtesy of C.S.Lewis in The Screwtape Letters "I forgive you as a Christian, but there are some things one can never forget."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No need to apologise, he said Purgatorially. It's only natural for you to be pro-Quaker or pro whatever else you might have moved onto. I'd be the same if I went from one tradition to another.
Thing is, though, not all Anglicans - even in the CofE - are that bothered about the Royal Family - and you may even find a few closet republicans in CofE churches ... Although indifference rather than an anti-royalist view would be more common than an outright anti-monarchist stance.
Plenty of Anglicans I know are pretty hazy as to who their Bishop is, let alone anything else.
You speak as if there's something, beyond accidents of history, monarchist about the CofE. But if it's the Church of England, it's as much the Church of us republicans as anyone else, surely? I mean, I know some monarchists do seem to assume that everyone shares their views, I know, (I particularly object to the singing of God Save the Queen on Remembrance Sunday, as if remembrance and monarchism are related concepts, which for me they are not), but I don't think it's expected to be one, is it?
I said no such thing. What I was trying to do was demonstrate that not all CofE Anglicans are monarchists - something I find that many folk from other countries automatically assume.
I do wonder how very liberal, republican vicars get on with the 1662 prayers when they don't buy into that world-view - although they all seem to use it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
As a Quaker, what's the deal with the oats?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As an Oater what is it with the quakes?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I think the use of the phrase "As a Christian" sucks fetid dingoes kidneys.
(With thanks to the late Douglas Adams)
Huia
[ 19. March 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: Huia ]
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As a Quaker, what's the deal with the oats?
My Meeting used to use a Quaker Oats container for offerings. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
sabine
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I thought this thread was going to be about the Tracey Ullman show sketches.
(On phone so can't link but a YouTube search should find them. May not be viewable outside the UK though.)
Basically she plays a woman in various situations - a date, a job interview - where everything is going swimmingly until she mentions she is a Christian, at which point she's suddenly treated like a leper.
In one sketch she has been asked to be godmother and they are at the baptism, but the parents freak out at the mention of religion.
As far as I know she doesn't self-identify as a Christian. Interesting to speculate where she got the idea for the character.
What's refreshing is that the character is not a fundie, not spouting judgemental claptrap - she's just a normal person.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The introduction "As a Christian..." is quite useful. It usually means I needn't bother reading anything that comes after it, lest I expose myself to Foam Mouthed Rambling Imbecile Virus.
I dunno. I have used the phrase occasionally when I have criticized the behavior/ teachings of right wing religious folk
Another time when "as a Christian" becomes a useful opening is when someone who possibly never darkens the door of a church is telling us what we should believe or do. Examples could include the various British/English nationalist groups who claim to be defending a "Christian nation" against Islam - to which I have to say "as a Christian, my faith and Lord do not need a bunch of thugs to defend us against anyone". Incidentally, those groups are also very likely to support the monarchy in a very over the top manner, seeing them as a symbol of British identity (ignoring the fact that they're Germans).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
When I was young and callow my reaction to the "As a Christian" thing would be to growl silently and/or switch off.
With age has come a better way, IMHO: I listen until a suitable pause in the rant (it usually is a rant) occurs and then ask something along the lines of "But do you think the confusion and schism about the filioque clause is where we can trace back to the origin of many of the world's troubles?" (or words to that effect). So far it has had a miraculous effect of stopping the conversation stone dead in 100% of cases.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
All English people are Germans if you go back far enough, why single out the Royal Family?
The English are Anglo-Saxons with some Danish, Norman and Celtic blood - and often more besides.
The staunch monarchists I know don't make a big deal out of the Royal Family being 'Wenglish' but British. The monarch is the king or queen of Scotland as well as England, of Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Canada, Australia and lots of islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
There are rocks and reefs which have the British royalty as titular heads of state ...
Meanwhile, the monarch is titular head of 'This Church of England by law established.' A whacky arrangement.
I've come across US Episcopalians online who make a bigger deal of the monarchy than most Anglicans I know over here - waxing lyrical as to how monarchy is a 'God-ordained' system of government and going on and on and on about King Charles the Martyr ...
They're nuts.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Brilliant, l'Organist.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
As a Christian, I believe that you should have an opportunity to save your soul, so instead of hanging you, which is what you deserve, I'm just going to poke your eyes out instead.
That's how they did things in Constantinople, only in Greek.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The introduction "As a Christian..." is quite useful. It usually means I needn't bother reading anything that comes after it, lest I expose myself to Foam Mouthed Rambling Imbecile Virus.
It's right up there with I'm not a racist but ... Nothing good every comes after the but!
Tubbs
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All English people are Germans if you go back far enough, why single out the Royal Family?
Because they've tried to hide it for purposes of expediency and survival- Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor, Battenburg to Mountbatten and all that?
Their "distancing" themselves from their German roots is only a century old if that.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Two world wars might do that to you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, and it probably says more about populist anti-German sentiment than it says about the Royal Family themselves.
The first two Georges were very 'German' in the way they acted - and George III took pains to distance himself from that, 'I glory in the name of Briton ...'
One doesn't have to be an ardent royalist not to see the Saxe-Coburg's Anglicisation of their surname as sinister and cynical. Heck, people who happened to have German surnames were having their houses and property vandalised and were even assaulted in the streets.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Dang that predictive text ... I meant 'English not 'Wenglish' ...
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the monarchy in a very over the top manner, seeing them as a symbol of British identity (ignoring the fact that they're Germans).
No they're not ... at least, not in any reasonable sense of the term. The present Queen has had four grandparents, two of whom were Scottish and one of whom (QUeen Mary) always identified as ENglish, though with German relatives. Her fourth granparent was King George, whose mother was not German.
If you want to track a single bloodline and claim that it wipes out all the others....then I'm scottish and entitled to a croft on Iona, because one of my great grandparents was born there. WHich is, as they say, absurd.
John
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
Or that Billy Connolly is Indian, given that he has an Indian ancestor at around the same time as the queen's last German one.
AG
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the monarchy in a very over the top manner, seeing them as a symbol of British identity (ignoring the fact that they're Germans).
No they're not ... at least, not in any reasonable sense of the term. The present Queen has had four grandparents, two of whom were Scottish and one of whom (QUeen Mary) always identified as ENglish, though with German relatives. Her fourth granparent was King George, whose mother was not German.
If you want to track a single bloodline and claim that it wipes out all the others....then I'm scottish and entitled to a croft on Iona, because one of my great grandparents was born there. WHich is, as they say, absurd.
John
German was Queen Mary's first language. The focus on being English came about in 1917 when it was expedient to suppress a Germanic background. After the Germans bombed London, lots of businesses with German sounding names were attacked and looted - with the Revolution in Russia the fear was that the UK would be next to topple an imperial throne (Marx always thought that it would be the UK).
The Queens Grandfather George didn't have a German mother - she was Danish. George's own Father was the product of an impeccably German marriage -- Victoria and Albert.
It's not so much that their ancestry is Germanic, is the steps they've taken to distance themselves from it and the reasons for doing so. Expediency not through conviction. Even today the Windsors express some pretty robust opinions that in other circumstances would have the Police reaching for heir notebooks
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Oh come on ...
Of course they changed their names out of expediency rather than 'conviction'. Why would anyone with a German sounding name change their surname to an English sounding one unless it was for:
- Reasons of assimilation or economic reasons,which is why many Jewish or German and Eastern European migrants Anglicised their names in the US and here too, to an extent. Are those migrants to be 'blamed' for that?
- Reasons of heightened tension and anti-German feeling.
What other reason could there be?
Ok, so the Saxe-Coburg Gothas weren't in the first category, of course. But it wasn't their fault Cousin Willy was acting like an arse - unless you blame it all on Queen Victoria for treating him like shit.
As for loopy-doopy views across the Royal Family as a whole - well, yes - some of them have - and presumably still do - entertain some pretty unsavoury and untenable positions. As with anything else, the situation is fairly mixed. Prince Philip can be an unreconstructed boor but his mother sheltered Jewish refugees in Nazi occupied Greece.
It's possible to be republican or anti-monarchist without descending into caricature or tumbling over into a kind of reverse racism over their ancestry.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
Not a Wenglophile, then?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the monarchy in a very over the top manner, seeing them as a symbol of British identity (ignoring the fact that they're Germans).
No they're not ... at least, not in any reasonable sense of the term.
Which is actually the whole point. The idiots of Britain First/EDL/BNP/UKIP and their ilk are hellbent on defending British identity (including the CofE) from foreign influence. Yet, a large proportion of the UK population, even those who identify as English, don't have to go back very many generations to find ancestors from elsewhere in Europe (mostly, other parts of the world less common). The royals happen to be a prominent example of that - with a strong German line (including their name if not for a deliberate change), plus Danish, Greek and other nationalities. My side comment wasn't intended to spark a debate about the correct designation of the Royal Family nationality, it was a comment on the idiotic hypocrisy of English nationalist devotion to the Royals without recognising that they are essentially European (as are most people in the UK).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Surely the problem is not that they're German as much as that royalty across Europe believed - and still believe - that they're a superior super-national ultra-aristocracy, born to rule and for whom normal rules don't seem to apply.
Yes, I'm sure there was a level of intermixing of the British, Danish, Spanish, Germans etc amongst the lesser classes for centuries, but the Royals took strategic intermarriage to a whole other level.
That's the problem here: we don't need self-appointed classes of people to live in luxury by reason only of an accident of birth.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The 'self-appointed' thing is a moot point, as Parliament invited the King back after the Interregnum.
For better or worse, we'd had a crack at republicanism for 11 years.
I'm not saying that was right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent but whatever our views on monarchy and its contemporary role, I hardly see the 'crowned heads of Europe' as some kind of scheming, Machiavellian coterie of inbreds (although they are inbred of course) rubbing their hands together and going, 'Mwa ha ha ha ... mwa ha ha ha ... we will rule, we must rule until Kingdom Come ... mwa ha ha ha ha ...'
My guess would be that the monarchies of Europe will continue until such time as people tire of them or see them as no longer carrying out any useful purpose or function - even if that's simply to maintain tradition.
I don't see that in the UK as yet - although I'm sure the game could change very quickly once Her Majesty pops her clogs and exchanges 'a corruptible crown for an incorruptible one' as Charles I put it ...
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Gamaliel (speaking of the Kaiser} quote:
...it wasn't their fault Cousin Willy was acting like an arse - unless you blame it all on Queen Victoria for treating him like shit.
Actually Victoria had a very soft spot for Wilhelm, first because he was the son of her favourite child, and also because of his withered arm, notwithstanding that he seems to have been poisonous even as a small child. Victoria described him as "a clever, dear, good little child, the great favourite of my beloved Vicky", in fact so great was the bond between them that Victoria died in Wilhelm's arms.
What made little Wilhelm resentful was that although he was called an emperor his realms didn't match up in size to those of his cousins Nicky (Russian) and George (British), and he bitterly resented his Uncle Bertie (Edward VII) who treated him as a tiresome nephew, rather than affording him the respect that he, Willy, felt was his due.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'self-appointed' thing is a moot point, as Parliament invited the King back after the Interregnum.
For better or worse, we'd had a crack at republicanism for 11 years.
Well, yes, but since it was a sort of miserable theocratic republicanism it's a bit irrelevant. Overdue for another experiment in my view.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that was right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent but whatever our views on monarchy and its contemporary role, I hardly see the 'crowned heads of Europe' as some kind of scheming, Machiavellian coterie of inbreds (although they are inbred of course) rubbing their hands together and going, 'Mwa ha ha ha ... mwa ha ha ha ... we will rule, we must rule until Kingdom Come ... mwa ha ha ha ha ...'
Then you're not looking very hard are you. Not only are they scheming bastards, they're bastards who sent many to their graves because of a spat between cousins.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The 'self-appointed' thing is a moot point, as Parliament invited the King back after the Interregnum.
For better or worse, we'd had a crack at republicanism for 11 years.
Well, yes, but since it was a sort of miserable theocratic republicanism it's a bit irrelevant. Overdue for another experiment in my view.
Not if we end up with some shite like Mrs May as President.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Not a Wenglophile, then?
Well, as I'm 'Wenglish' and do talk tidy, I'm certainly a 'Wenglophile'.
For some reason my predictive text jumped to 'Wenglish' rather than 'English' ... perhaps because I type things in 'Wenglish' sometimes - the dialect of the South Wales Valleys.
I've done that here before now but won't do so this time as I've been told off for it.
Meanwhile, as for the links between European Monarchy and European Imperialism - such as British Imperialism, German Imperialism, Russian Imperialism etc - have been clearly established then there's no way I'd try to exonerate those institutions from all the shite that happened and that culminated in the Great War ...
But there was more to WW1 than a dynastic struggle between close relatives. Much larger and greater forces at work than that.
On a micro-level, of course, had it not been for WW1 the Windsors would still be called Saxe Coburg Gotha to this day and I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid.
You can't blame the current Windsors for the attitudes and actions of their forebears, of course. They have to be judged on their own merits. But the personality side - are the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh scheming gits? - is a different issue to the institutional one.
As to what a latter-day experiment in British Republicanism would look like ... I have no idea. My concern would be that it would just as bloody po-faced and petty-minded as the theocratic Puritan experiment - only without the theocracy.
Brambles and briars on all sides with this one.
I'm all for social justice but I've long since given up on the idea of some egalitarian utopia. I'd have thought the 20th century would have disabused most of us of that pipe-dream ...
Still, one has to strive for something and something other than unfettered capitalism, red in tooth and claw ...
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
And for a glimpse of monarchy at its best (though an elected President could well say something similar):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvB0jZKRKrk&nohtml5=False
Harald V seems a decent and level-headed chap, to say the least, and describes his country well! For their part, they appear to quite like the old boy.....
IJ
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Then you're not looking very hard are you. Not only are they scheming bastards, they're bastards who sent many to their graves because of a spat between cousins. [/QUOTE]
The last time I looked, Britain entered WW1 because the Germans invaded neutral Belgium and we had a treaty with them that we felt honour-bound to hold.
Also, of course, we wouldn't have been best pleased to have the German Imperial Fleet in control of the Channel Ports.
The whole thing was triggered off by internal struggles in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and by neither Germany and Russia being prepared to back down but to sabre-rattle their way to Armageddon.
As they descended into the morass, we were drawn into it too.
There is a revisionist view of history that suggests that the British were to blame because the Germans were shit scared of us because of what we'd allowed to happen in Ireland with the Potato Famine mid-19th century and our behaviour out in the various colonies. But steady-on, it's not as if the Germans were paragons of virtue in that regard ... witness the massacres in Namibia in 1904.
The Kaiser had secret plans to blockade and bombard Boston and New York should the Americans ever annoy him ... and that long before WW1 broke out and long before the US even dreamt of entering the conflict.
I'm not suggesting the Kaiser was any more of a bastard than any other Imperial power at that time - whether Britain, Russia or the French.
But he had this very paranoid view that Germany was in danger of being squeezed from both sides and so wanted to gain extra elbow-room by bashing the neutral Belgians (themselves no saints when it came to imperialism) and bulldozing onto Paris.
There was more to it than King George V and Kaiser Bill not seeing eye to eye ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is a revisionist view of history that suggests that the British were to blame because the Germans were shit scared of us because of what we'd allowed to happen in Ireland with the Potato Famine mid-19th century and our behaviour out in the various colonies. But steady-on, it's not as if the Germans were paragons of virtue in that regard ... witness the massacres in Namibia in 1904.
History is subjective and perception. That's not revisionism, that is simply another way to explain the facts.
quote:
There was more to it than King George V and Kaiser Bill not seeing eye to eye ...
Yes. But this isn't about whether there was more than what Kaiser Bill did or didn't do. This about whether the monarchy was the root of the battles for power in Europe.
You can present other opinions and I'm not denying it was more complicated and other things were involved. But I'm saying that in my opinion the root is in competition between the aristocracy, and within the royals, in Europe for supremacy and power and the willingness to use others as pawns in their Colonial power games.
You don't have to agree or see that root. I don't care what you do or don't believe.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The idiots of Britain First/EDL/BNP/UKIP and their ilk are hellbent on defending British identity (including the CofE) from foreign influence. Yet, a large proportion of the UK population, even those who identify as English, don't have to go back very many generations to find ancestors from elsewhere in Europe (mostly, other parts of the world less common).
One wonders how many generations the average Scot would have to go back before an English ancestor was found, and yet you're a staunch defender of the Scottish identity and culture against unwelcome English influence.
Marvin
English ancestors all the way back to the 1500s at least. Shit, we've barely even left Worcestershire since the Civil War.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Marvin
English ancestors all the way back to the 1500s at least. Shit, we've barely even left Worcestershire since the Civil War.
Oh puleeze. Nobody gives a shit about your antecedents. There is a 100% chance that you've got immigrants and non-English in your tree.
Englishness, and Scottishness, is absolutely nothing to do with how much willy-waving you can do about where your ancestors were born. Prick.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
History is subjective and perception. That's not revisionism, that is simply another way to explain the facts.
With comments like that, you could get a job in the White House.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
With comments like that, you could get a job in the White House.
Fuck off. It was your Tory bollocks which put the fascist there, nothing to do with me.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Anyway.
In response to the death of Martin McGuinness, Ian Paisley Jr, prefacing his comment with the words 'as a Christian' felt that he was obliged to say of Mr McGuinness that it wasn't 'how you start your life that's important; it's how you finish'.
Usually the 'as a Christian' thing is cringeworthy. But I think it had some real meaning in this case, and in this context.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My side comment wasn't intended to spark a debate about the correct designation of the Royal Family nationality, it was a comment on the idiotic hypocrisy of English nationalist devotion to the Royals without recognising that they are essentially European (as are most people in the UK).
And that "essentially European" bollocks is the same nonsense that the EDL and their friends produce. If we agree that having ancestry in other countries doesn't stop you from being English, or Scottish, or whatever, then we must also agree that having ancestry in a range of European countries doesn't make you "essentially European".
The only reasonable meaning of "essentially European" is someone who identifies with the continent as a whole (or at least a large part of it) rather stronger than they do with an individual country. It's hard to see how you could achieve that without fluency in a handful of European languages, but perhaps you can.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Marvin
English ancestors all the way back to the 1500s at least. Shit, we've barely even left Worcestershire since the Civil War.
The Scottish have roots on the island from far before your interloping ancestors left Europe.
Ancestry doesn't strengthen your claim to a culture by itself, else 1/2 of America would be culturally Irish.
"English" identity, BTW, is a mongrel mishmash of European invaders and transients, AKA immigrants.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Marvin
English ancestors all the way back to the 1500s at least. Shit, we've barely even left Worcestershire since the Civil War.
The Scottish have roots on the island from far before your interloping ancestors left Europe.
Ancestry doesn't strengthen your claim to a culture by itself, else 1/2 of America would be culturally Irish.
"English" identity, BTW, is a mongrel mishmash of European invaders and transients, AKA immigrants.
I understood it to be fairly conclusively proved that of all the indigenous 'races' that inhabit the British Isles, the least British of them all is the English?!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Race is a variable is a filter through which people choose to view others.
All the cultures in the Isles are accretive, there are none pure to the original occupants. Some do have older links. ISTM, the culture which became English arrived after the cultures which became Scottish and Irish. I'm not a cultural anthropologist, so I cannot sort out all the influences nor their age and overlap. But Marvin's claim because of his ancestry are meaningless. An immigrant's child has as much claim to English/British culture as one whose ancestors hunted aurochs on the island.
[ 21. March 2017, 16:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh puleeze. Nobody gives a shit about your antecedents.
It was a direct, if flippant, response to Alan's post.
quote:
There is a 100% chance that you've got immigrants and non-English in your tree.
Well duh. Everyone not currently in Ethiopia is either a migrant or descended from migrants.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It was a direct, if flippant, response to Alan's post.
It was the point where the mask slipped, Tory-boy. You thought it was relevant to a point about Scotland to mention your (probably utterly false) story about your family in Southern England, asserting your unearned privilege to have a say in other people's decisions.
Oh well oi have family in deepest Somerset going back to the 15 century, don't you know, and I think I should be asked whether or not Scotland should be allowed to leave. Because I was here first and I matter more than you do.
Like fuck. OK have an opinion, but keep your claim of racial superiority and privilege to yourself you puny little shit.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
One wonders how many generations the average Scot would have to go back before an English ancestor was found, and yet you're a staunch defender of the Scottish identity and culture against unwelcome English influence.
Since Scottish independence is based on what is best for the people who currently live in Scotland rather than those who are "ethnic Scots", that's not relevant. So, if I use "English" to mean someone born in England there are several of us who live in Scotland and who support Scottish independence. Also lots of people born in Poland, India, Australia and practically everywhere else.
Just because English nationalism is ethnic in nature (hence the calls for those who are dark skinned to "go home" even if they and their parents, grandparents and possibly even older generations) doesn't mean Scottish nationalism is ethnic in nature as well.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And that "essentially European" bollocks is the same nonsense that the EDL and their friends produce. If we agree that having ancestry in other countries doesn't stop you from being English, or Scottish, or whatever, then we must also agree that having ancestry in a range of European countries doesn't make you "essentially European".
"European" = someone born in Europe. Deny the fact that the vast majority of people born in England don't have ancestors (for argument let's stick to relatively recent ancestors so we don't have to argue about when people first crossed the Dogger land bridge at the end of the last glaciation) born somewhere in Europe. A much smaller number of people would have ancestors born in Africa, Asia, the Americas etc. (which basically proves we're all human, which isn't all that controversial).
quote:
The only reasonable meaning of "essentially European" is someone who identifies with the continent as a whole (or at least a large part of it) rather stronger than they do with an individual country.
There are, of course, people who do identify more strongly with the continent as a whole more than an individual country. There are a far larger number of people who have an identity that covers several countries within Europe - if you're born in one country with parents from one or more other countries, for example. Which would describe much of the Royal Family. And, those multiple identities can last through several generations - just look at the US where large numbers of people identify as "Irish", "Italian", "Scottish" etc after several generations.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
An immigrant's child has as much claim to English/British culture as one whose ancestors hunted aurochs on the island.
I am an immigrant. My children are American. I might become American in the future.
Culturally, I am mostly British. That's not going to change much. Certainly I've adopted some of the habits and practices common to the country in which I now live, but my instinctive reactions are entirely British.
My children are a cultural mish-mash, but there's a big British component in there. They are clearly culturally distinct from their American friends. These points of difference between my children and "American culture" do not change "American culture" at all. It's certainly possible for "American culture" to adopt elements from a particular subculture, but that's not the same thing at all. If some element of culture remains within a subgroup and does not pass in to wider society, it's not a part of the wider society's culture.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are a far larger number of people who have an identity that covers several countries within Europe - if you're born in one country with parents from one or more other countries, for example. Which would describe much of the Royal Family. And, those multiple identities can last through several generations - just look at the US where large numbers of people identify as "Irish", "Italian", "Scottish" etc after several generations.
My point is that that's a choice. Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans choose to identify in that way - it's not some kind of genetic determinism forced on them by their ancestry. If Tony Carruso doesn't want to preserve a distinctive Italianness, he doesn't have to. If he doesn't want people to assume Italianness of him, he can change his name to Anthony Carr, and he's erased any sense of "being Italian".
Suppose we have, for the sake of argument, a German married to a Frenchwoman, living and raising children in England. There are lots of possibilities for the culture and identity that the children end up with. Depending on the choices that the parents make, and the choices that the children make themselves, they could end up with almost any combination of German, French, and English culture and identity. They might identify as generic "Europeans" without a particularly strong attraction to any of the individual countries, the might identify as some combination of the three countries they have a claim on, or they might only claim one or two of them.
[ 21. March 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Who said anything about "generic European"? Whatever that is.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's the problem here: we don't need self-appointed classes of people to live in luxury by reason only of an accident of birth.
Does that mean that you would be happy with the monarchy if they lived at a standard of, say, modest middle-class comfort? Or indeed of respectable working class comfort?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The last time I looked, Britain entered WW1 because the Germans invaded neutral Belgium and we had a treaty with them that we felt honour-bound to hold.
Also, of course, we wouldn't have been best pleased to have the German Imperial Fleet in control of the Channel Ports.
The whole thing was triggered off by internal struggles in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and by neither Germany and Russia being prepared to back down but to sabre-rattle their way to Armageddon.
As they descended into the morass, we were drawn into it too.
There is a revisionist view of history that suggests that the British were to blame because the Germans were shit scared of us because of what we'd allowed to happen in Ireland with the Potato Famine mid-19th century and our behaviour out in the various colonies. But steady-on, it's not as if the Germans were paragons of virtue in that regard ... witness the massacres in Namibia in 1904.
The Kaiser had secret plans to blockade and bombard Boston and New York should the Americans ever annoy him ... and that long before WW1 broke out and long before the US even dreamt of entering the conflict.
I'm not suggesting the Kaiser was any more of a bastard than any other Imperial power at that time - whether Britain, Russia or the French.
But he had this very paranoid view that Germany was in danger of being squeezed from both sides and so wanted to gain extra elbow-room by bashing the neutral Belgians (themselves no saints when it came to imperialism) and bulldozing onto Paris.
There was more to it than King George V and Kaiser Bill not seeing eye to eye ...
Did a fair bit of reading about the history of the years leading up to WW1. There are additional aspects which often ignored. Such as the arms race commencing in the 1890s, the British realization that the German economic future would put it ahead of Britain, that they wanted to contain Germany by seeking alliances against them. Germany felt kept down and mistreated, which has some seeds in fact. We had wondered as a family if it mightn't have been better had Germany won WW1. There certainly wasn't much to choose from in the two sides. My father's family which lived on both sides of the French and German border got all killed any how.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And both the UK and Germany had totally failed to realise that the world's greatest economic power by 1914 was the US; by 1919 it was the creditor nation as well. To be fair, many in the US had failed to make those realisations as well. UKIP etc have still failed to understand.
[ 21. March 2017, 22:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
What would a German victory have looked like? They'd have annexed - or recovered - parts of France, probably hung onto Belgium and the Channel Ports - which would probably have brought them into renewed conflict with Britain within a few years. I wouldn't expect they'd have been in a position to invade the UK in 1917 or '18. Not after the years of carnage on the Western Front.
No, there'd either have been some kind of Bolshevik uprising in Germany had the war dragged on ... Or else a round-two within a few years - sooner than the 2O years before WW2.
As it was, the British were anticipating the War going on until 1920 at least. Had that happened then I suspect there'd have been no clear winner. Both sides would have fizzled out through sheer exhaustion.
The German push of 1917 was their last throw of the dice. Once it'd been contained - and it was a close-run thing, then an Armistice was inevitable. US entry hastened the end, of course, but even if the US hadn't intervened I suspect there'd have been stalemate rather than a clear win for either side.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There are additional aspects which often ignored. Such as the arms race commencing in the 1890s,
The late 19th century arms race had, by 1914, created a state very similar to a doctrine of deterrence. The slaughter of Flanders may have come as a shock to the ordinary people of Europe, but to the military and political leadership it was expected. The experiences of Crimea and the American Civil War had amply illustrated the capability of modern weapons to inflict massive casualties, and the slaughter that would be the inevitable result of trying to overrun entrenched positions. And, by 1914 the capabilities of artillery and machine guns had only increased. It was very much a case of no one wanting a war because of the inevitable massive loss of life.
However, there was always the hope of a quick, decisive victory. A rapid, unexpected assault to outflank the entrenched positions of the enemy and avoid the lines of trenches facing each other. In 1914 it's what the Germans tried to do, and failed, in invading Belgium to outflank the French lines on their border. They just couldn't get their troops forward fast enough. In 1940 it succeeded.
And, that hope was the driver of the arms race. The race to develop the technology that would give the decisive edge, to have a big enough army to deliver a decisive blow. Fundamentally no different from the second half of the 20th century - the race to develop a nuclear arsenal as the ultimate deterrent. And, to develop first strike capability that could render the nuclear arsenal of the enemy inoperable, or defence systems to do the same. And, to develop delivery systems that could evade the counter measures of the other side.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There was also a belief, both in the military and in the public, that war with Germany was inevitable. There were plays about it, at the turn of the century, a steady drumbeat of ginning up the aggression and nationalism. And the Antarctic explorer Robert Scott, a naval captain, deliberately went to Antarctica in 1909. His plan was to be back before war broke out. (Didn't work out.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
So as a Christian, I can see clearly that Germany was supposed to dominate the continent. The two world wars were God's punishment. Brexit was ordained by God and wouldn't have been necessary had God's will for WW1 been fulfilled. And now I comdemn myself to vomitting. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Germany won WW1 on November 1, 1993.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There was more to it than King George V and Kaiser Bill not seeing eye to eye ...
Agreed but there was that to it as well. It goes back to Queen Victoria playing her grandsons off against each other - and it led to George refusing to welcome Nicholas from Russia.
WWI has its territorial issues but it was also a family scrap for the position of top dog.
It was also a convenient fight for some. 1914 saw the greatest number of days lost to strikes in the UK ever - second only to 1926. The fear was that revolution would break out - that can't be taken out of the equation. An appeal to patriotism brought things in the UK back on an even keel but did for Russian and Germany monarchies. Part of the reason was that George left the slaughter to his generals while Wilhelm and Nicholas headed up their armed forces in the field.
George was happier at home shooting pheasants and sticking stamps in his albums.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, there was concern about revolution and the years leading up to WW1 saw massive industrial unrest in the UK. Heck, people were still talking about the great Cambrian Coal Strike and the Tonypandy Riots when I was growing up in South Wales in the '60s and '70s.
That said, I think it's simplistic to suggest that there was a desire for war with Germany to distract attention from unrest at home. I suspect that had WW1 not broken out when it did we'd have seen civil war in Ireland. The Unionists were already sabre-rattling and posing with guns and marching militia and some of the military may have joined them has it developed to a full scale rebellion to halt Home Rule. Whether this would have spilled over onto the mainland in the form of violent revolution is a possibility - but I doubt it.
There'd either have been some kind of two-state or power-sharing compromise or years of chaos which would have worked to German advantage and hampered any British response to their expansionism on the continent.
Whatever the case, things did need to change and it's certainly true that some war-mongers and whackoes - including Bishops - saw war with Germany as some wierd way to 'purify' the nation ...
Whether some kind of revolution would have been a preferable development ... Uh oh ... Revolutions have a tendency to devour their children. I see no reason why some kind of revolution in the Britain of the 1910s would have been any different.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's the problem here: we don't need self-appointed classes of people to live in luxury by reason only of an accident of birth.
Does that mean that you would be happy with the monarchy if they lived at a standard of, say, modest middle-class comfort? Or indeed of respectable working class comfort?
Can't speak for Cheesy, but I will never be happy about a monarchy. No-one us special through accident of birth. I fail to see why we should afford a special status to a bunch of people because their ancestors were more successful warlord thugs than some other warlord thugs. Yes, William the Bastard, I'm looking at you...
[ 22. March 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It was the point where the mask slipped, Tory-boy. You thought it was relevant to a point about Scotland
The post to which I was responding wasn't about Scotland, nor did it even mention Scotland. It was part of an argument about British identity sparked by a comment about the Royal Family being German. I mentioned Scottish Independence in order to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy.
quote:
to mention your (probably utterly false) story
I have birth and marriage records going back to the 1500s to support my story. Obviously that amount of time is enough for such records to potentially become corrupted, but that's true of any historical claim.
quote:
about your family in Southern England,
Worcestershire is not in Southern England. And before my distant ancestor moved here after the Civil War he lived in Cheshire.
quote:
asserting your unearned privilege to have a say in other people's decisions.
Which decisions would they be, then?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because English nationalism is ethnic in nature doesn't mean Scottish nationalism is ethnic in nature as well.
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because English nationalism is ethnic in nature doesn't mean Scottish nationalism is ethnic in nature as well.
Keep telling yourself that. You'll sleep better.
Well, what has been the attitude of immigrant and minority groups living in Scotland to independence and Scottish nationalism generally? That might provide some indication about how genuinely inclusive it is.
I know that in Quebec, the nationalists make a big deal about how they're just promoting "civic nationalism", nothing to do with race or ethnicity, you understand. But the immigrants and minorities don't seem to be buying it, judging by their voting habits, both in elections and the two referendums that have been held since 1980, as well as just informal canvassing of opinion.
(The case for it being civic-nationalism is probably not helped by the small but steady stream of xenophobic comments made by leading nationalist figures on an ongoing basis.)
But I HAVE heard that things are a bit different in Scotland, that it does seem to be one place where the nationalism hasn't gotten entwined in petty racial chauvinism. Other than anecdotes, I don't really have any evidence either way about that.
[ 22. March 2017, 14:32: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I HAVE heard that things are a bit different in Scotland, that it does seem to be one place where the nationalism hasn't gotten entwined in petty racial chauvinism.
All the petty racial chauvinism in Scotland is directed against the English rather than anyone else.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I HAVE heard that things are a bit different in Scotland, that it does seem to be one place where the nationalism hasn't gotten entwined in petty racial chauvinism.
All the petty racial chauvinism in Scotland is directed against the English rather than anyone else.
Well, sure, and Quebec nationalists like to have a go at the local English community(aka Westmount Rhodesians). But that's probably more to do with their historical status as the top dogs, socially, economically, and politically, rather than simple hostility to outsiders. (And, in fact, old-stock Quebec anglos aren't really outsiders in any case).
For a while now, however, it has become apparent that certain elements in the nationalist camp also harbour hostility to "newer" immigrant groups. Nationalist apologists argue that this is simply because those communities tend to side with the old-stock anglos when it comes to independence and general questions of Quebec's destiny. Recent issues like religious headwear and the Charter Of Values call this defense somewhat into question.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I HAVE heard that things are a bit different in Scotland, that it does seem to be one place where the nationalism hasn't gotten entwined in petty racial chauvinism.
All the petty racial chauvinism in Scotland is directed against the English rather than anyone else.
English isn't a race. It is more tribe and tribalism is present in Scotland. Which is more a nationalistic thing.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I HAVE heard that things are a bit different in Scotland, that it does seem to be one place where the nationalism hasn't gotten entwined in petty racial chauvinism.
All the petty racial chauvinism in Scotland is directed against the English rather than anyone else.
Though, it's not directed towards individual English people (unless they start to act all superior to the people of Scotland) on a very large scale - though probably most of us have experienced some resentment from Scots at one time or another. As noted though, that's mostly fallout from the more serious angst - against governments (of all flavours) comprising almost entirely MPs elected to represent English seats deciding the fate of the people of Scotland as though our views and needs are less than those of the leafy suburbs of London and the vilages of the home counties (for Tories) or the industrial heartland of England (for Labour). After 300 years of unwanted rule by an English government it's not unexpected that English people get a bit of stick as well.
Though, I know many English-born people here who are fully-fledged yellow through and through Nationalists.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, I know many English-born people here who are fully-fledged yellow through and through Nationalists.
And I think this is the key. Not necessarily being Nationalist, but becoming local.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, I know many English-born people here who are fully-fledged yellow through and through Nationalists.
And I think this is the key. Not necessarily being Nationalist, but becoming local.
Local. OMG. Not clan rivalry, please! It's bad enough in Wales, where people in one village hate those in the next village, people in one valley hate those in the next valley and the valley folk hate those in the cities. At least the English serve to unite them.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As noted though, that's mostly fallout from the more serious angst - against governments (of all flavours) comprising almost entirely MPs elected to represent English seats deciding the fate of the people of Scotland as though our views and needs are less than those of the leafy suburbs of London and the vilages of the home counties (for Tories) or the industrial heartland of England (for Labour).
Population of Scotland: 5.3 million
Population of England: 53 million
Population of Wales: 3 million
On a democratic basis, therefore, it's right and proper that 86% of UK Government business should be focussed on England.
Don't get me wrong - I can totally understand why Scots wouldn't like only having about a 9% say in how their country is run. That is, after all, the exact same reason why I'm not a massive fan of the EU (of which the UK forms about 12%).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Don't get me wrong - I can totally understand why Scots wouldn't like only having about a 9% say in how their country is run.
So, what's wrong with us having a 100% say in how our country is run, and you folk living down south can have 100% say in how your country is run?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have birth and marriage records going back to the 1500s to support my story. Obviously that amount of time is enough for such records to potentially become corrupted, but that's true of any historical claim.
You really are a fucking tool. If each generation is 25 years, then over 500 years, that is about 20 generations. That means you must have something between a thousand and a million people in your family tree during that time (unless, I don't know, a lot of people married their cousin or their brother. Which I can believe from what you write).
And out of that you've been able to trace a single line of about 20 people who have been in England that whole time. Wowee.
Big deal. There is a 100% chance that you have other people who are not from England in that group of people. So your claim of being purebred is necessarily utter bollocks.
quote:
Worcestershire is not in Southern England. And before my distant ancestor moved here after the Civil War he lived in Cheshire.
Oh shut up you fucking prick. Worcestershire is clearly in Southern England. It is hardly the north, barely the Midlands. But what has that got to do with anything anyway - it has feck all to do with Scotland. Even your claims to being a purebred are nothing to do with Scotland, which is hundreds of miles away.
quote:
Which decisions would they be, then?
Oh I don't know, maybe the one where you think it is appropriate to make claims about your family history, and you authenticness as an Englishman in connection with whether Scots should be allowed to leave the UK.
FFS, you are as stupid as a bog-brush.
[ 22. March 2017, 16:16: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Don't get me wrong - I can totally understand why Scots wouldn't like only having about a 9% say in how their country is run.
So, what's wrong with us having a 100% say in how our country is run, and you folk living down south can have 100% say in how your country is run?
Nothing. I was in favour of Scottish Independence last time, if you recall, and I will be again this time as and when it happens.
It just perplexes me that Scotland can use almost exactly the same arguments for being independent from the UK as the UK can for being independent from the EU, and you will call them justified in the former case and idiotic (or worse) in the latter. Me, I'm consistent - I agree with the arguments in both cases (notwithstanding the fact that I was a reluctant Remain voter due to concern over the economic consequences).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, I know many English-born people here who are fully-fledged yellow through and through Nationalists.
And I think this is the key. Not necessarily being Nationalist, but becoming local.
Local. OMG. Not clan rivalry, please! It's bad enough in Wales, where people in one village hate those in the next village, people in one valley hate those in the next valley and the valley folk hate those in the cities. At least the English serve to unite them.
Not necessarily local in that regard. I mean engaging, becoming part of the community, instead of being the English Expat.
[ 22. March 2017, 16:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All English people are Germans if you go back far enough, why single out the Royal Family?
Inconvenient point of order - Celts outnumber every other genetic group *even in England.*
"It should dispel any idea of trying to base what is a cultural identity on a genetic difference, because there really isn't one."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It just perplexes me that Scotland can use almost exactly the same arguments for being independent from the UK as the UK can for being independent from the EU, and you will call them justified in the former case and idiotic (or worse) in the latter. Me, I'm consistent - I agree with the arguments in both cases (notwithstanding the fact that I was a reluctant Remain voter due to concern over the economic consequences).
More bollocks. You don't actually mean that otherwise you'd be in favour of ongoing and fractal referendum right down to the lowest possible units of independence.
Oh, never mind, you are that stupid.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You really are a fucking tool. If each generation is 25 years, then over 500 years, that is about 20 generations. That means you must have something between a thousand and a million people in your family tree during that time
It's a lot of people, and that's a fact. Especially as we've included siblings of direct descendants in the tree as well (where possible).
quote:
And out of that you've been able to trace a single line of about 20 people who have been in England that whole time. Wowee.
Multiple lines, actually. I can't recall the exact number, but there are at least a hundred different surnames. Birth records from a few hundred years ago often don't have the mother's maiden name, which can make it very difficult to locate the parents' marriage record (and therefore means you can't trace the mother's line any further).
quote:
Big deal. There is a 100% chance that you have other people who are not from England in that group of people.
It's possible that some of the people we haven't traced yet will prove to be from somewhere else, sure. Not 100%, though. Major wars excepted, most people didn't travel around as much back then as they do now.
quote:
So your claim of being purebred is necessarily utter bollocks.
Your word, not mine.
quote:
quote:
Worcestershire is not in Southern England. And before my distant ancestor moved here after the Civil War he lived in Cheshire.
Oh shut up you fucking prick. Worcestershire is clearly in Southern England.
The Hell It Is. Come to the county and tell any local you like that they're a Southerner, and let me know if they agree.
quote:
But what has that got to do with anything anyway
You were the one who accused me of being from the South of England. Maybe you should say what you think it's got to do with this discussion.
quote:
it has feck all to do with Scotland.
Never said it did.
quote:
Even your claims to being a purebred
Your word, not mine.
quote:
maybe the one where you think it is appropriate to make claims about your family history, and you authenticness as an Englishman in connection with whether Scots should be allowed to leave the UK.
Where did I do that, then?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You don't actually mean that otherwise you'd be in favour of ongoing and fractal referendum right down to the lowest possible units of independence.
On numerous occasions over the years I've stated my belief that when it comes to countries smaller is better. I've posted in support of independence for Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Catalonia and the Basque Country on various threads, which I'm sure you can find in Oblivion if you're particularly bothered. Though I will admit that my calls for Independence for Worcestershire may have been slightly tongue-in-cheek. Slightly.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The Hell It Is. Come to the county and tell any local you like that they're a Southerner, and let me know if they agree.
Look at a map. And then a compass. And then decide whether a county to the West and below the centre can be anything other than Southern England.
quote:
quote:
But what has that got to do with anything anyway
You were the one who accused me of being from the South of England. Maybe you should say what you think it's got to do with this discussion.
What? No. I didn't mention my ancestors at all. You brought it up for absolutely no reason at all other than to make some fucking pathetic point about bloodlines.
Look, you can believe whatever bollocks you like about your family, the fact is that since the 16 century every person living in England has non-English ancestors. You can deny it as much as you like, it is still true. If you don't believe it, get a fucking DNA test.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
On numerous occasions over the years I've stated my belief that when it comes to countries smaller is better. I've posted in support of independence for Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Catalonia and the Basque Country on various threads, which I'm sure you can find in Oblivion if you're particularly bothered. Though I will admit that my calls for Independence for Worcestershire may have been slightly tongue-in-cheek. Slightly.
And then, according to you, you'd be a hypocrite if you then didn't support calls for independence for every town, then every street then every house and then every bedroom in the land.
And you're so thick you can't even see it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It just perplexes me that Scotland can use almost exactly the same arguments for being independent from the UK as the UK can for being independent from the EU, and you will call them justified in the former case and idiotic (or worse) in the latter.
They aren't, of course, the same arguments because of the very significant differences between a government and something that is not a government.
The EU, and the associated institutions thereof, are not a government in any realistic sense of the word - the closest it gets to governing is when each individual national government manage to agree on a common course of action. The authority of the EU is dispersed among the independent, sovereign governments that are members, and who have each freely made the decision to join. The EU is barely more than an administrative entity that actually manages to make that system of decentralised, independent governments function in some approximation to efficient (and, to be honest it does do things efficiently).
On the other hand, Westminister very clearly is a government. A government that was forced on the people of Scotland 300 years ago and has been resented ever since (degree of resentment being variable). And, a government that has more often than not considered Scotland as of lesser importance than England, and southern England in particular. Recent evidence is that the Tories actually consider Scotland to be less important than their own little internal squabbles, why else promise Scotland a safe place in the EU and then almost immediately forget that promise to play silly political games to try and hold a fractious party together for a few more years?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Of course it isn't the same and people can be against Brexit and for Indyref for different reasons. I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
At least Marvin doesn't hold the equally ridiculous position of supporting the Union of 3 and a bit European nations while opposing the Union of 28 (or is that 30 and a bit?)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It just perplexes me that England can use almost exactly the same arguments for being independent from the EU as Scotland can for being independent from England, and you will call them justified in the former case and idiotic (or worse) in the latter.
Fixed that for you.
This is exactly the argument that the pro-Brexit Unionists are now deploying and it is nonsense on a stick. The sheer hypocrisy of it makes me weep.
(The reverse argument that you set out isn't actually true, btw. There's a very strong case for Scotland hitching its wagon to the EU, rather than the rUK.)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It just perplexes me that England can use almost exactly the same arguments for being independent from the EU as Scotland can for being independent from England, and you will call them justified in the former case and idiotic (or worse) in the latter.
Fixed that for you.
Fair point, except for the fact that I'm not anti-Scottish independence in any way.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0