Is Britain a racist country?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Britain a racist country?

Page 13 of 25 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

TheJudge 05 Jun 15 1.16pm
I don't strongly disagree with what you say. It is a question of the language we use to describe things. I think it is easy to make sweeping statements regardless of your politics but when we get down to specifics we must be more honest. You are right that "culture" is in flux and often borrowed from other cultures. The word itself is a lazy inadequate word. In the real world,this country has changed dramatically in my life time in so many ways,many not foe the better. Immigration has undoubtedly been responsible for a lot of that how ever you want to spin it. I would admit that there have been positives and I would embrace those but the rate of immigrants is far far too rapid and many have not integrated. If there was an end point to this influx then one could see a less turbulent future but as one group integrates, another is queuing up behind them. Change is inevitable through time, but for one or two generations to experience such change is difficult. For the future generations, it will be the norm.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

05 Jun 15 1.16pm

I don't strongly disagree with what you say. It is a question of the language we use to describe things.
I think it is easy to make sweeping statements regardless of your politics but when we get down to specifics we must be more honest.
You are right that "culture" is in flux and often borrowed from other cultures. The word itself is a lazy inadequate word. In the real world,this country has changed dramatically in my life time in so many ways,many not foe the better. Immigration has undoubtedly been responsible for a lot of that how ever you want to spin it. I would admit that there have been positives and I would embrace those but the rate of immigrants is far far too rapid and many have not integrated. If there was an end point to this influx then one could see a less turbulent future but as one group integrates, another is queuing up behind them. Change is inevitable through time, but for one or two generations to experience such change is difficult. For the future generations, it will be the norm.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 05 Jun 15 1.45pm
I love it when hundreds, if not thousands, of year's old history is trotted out as if it's relevant to migration today. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 05 Jun 15 1.45pm

I love it when hundreds, if not thousands, of year's old history is trotted out as if it's relevant to migration today.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit Lincoln 05 Jun 15 2.51pm
Quote johnfirewall at 05 Jun 2015 1.09pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 12.54pm What is this shared culture we have, that's being eroded, that your talking about. I don't disagree that migration causes change, but all cultures are fluid and change according to the ideas and social interactions. It's all those things associated with the British working class that ironically the lefties frown upon, such as dogs, fish and chips, getting drunk and fighting. Dunno where you get that idea from john, but this leftie likes dogs(well behaved non aggressive ones), eats fish and chips about once a fortnight, drinks to excess a little more often than is healthy, but does abhor fighting. Unless it is an organised sport with rules, like boxing or wrestling. Even those two don`t interest me in the slightest though. Still, getting one out of four right is about par for the course for righties I suppose. Or am I being too generous ? Edited by lankygit (05 Jun 2015 2.58pm) Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit

Lincoln 05 Jun 15 2.51pm

Quote johnfirewall at 05 Jun 2015 1.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 12.54pm

What is this shared culture we have, that's being eroded, that your talking about. I don't disagree that migration causes change, but all cultures are fluid and change according to the ideas and social interactions.

It's all those things associated with the British working class that ironically the lefties frown upon, such as dogs, fish and chips, getting drunk and fighting.

Dunno where you get that idea from john, but this leftie likes dogs(well behaved non aggressive ones), eats fish and chips about once a fortnight, drinks to excess a little more often than is healthy, but does abhor fighting. Unless it is an organised sport with rules, like boxing or wrestling.

Even those two don`t interest me in the slightest though.

Still, getting one out of four right is about par for the course for righties I suppose.
Or am I being too generous ?

Edited by lankygit (05 Jun 2015 2.58pm)

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jun 15 3.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts. Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled. During early periods of Norman rule, you had Normans, Norman Franks, Saxons, Angles, Danish, Jute, Dane, Cymri and celtic peoples making up the population of England in significant numbers or positions of authority. Europe has always been a melting pot of cultures. There never has been a dominant culture not really (Culture tends to exist in flux of different internal cultural ideas, in conflict. The idea of a national shared culture is really a myth, rather there are a number of shared and disputed ideas about national culture). Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie. It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so. I also find your ideas on 'dominant culture' to be way off. To say that generations of peoples who live in the same areas don't share rituals, language and knowledge bases and hence a culture is just wrong. You nit pick in proving your point but its more a play of words than an actual convincing argument. I think its related to dislike of nationality rather than a balanced analysis of what culture is. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jun 15 3.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am

The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts.

Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled.

During early periods of Norman rule, you had Normans, Norman Franks, Saxons, Angles, Danish, Jute, Dane, Cymri and celtic peoples making up the population of England in significant numbers or positions of authority.

Europe has always been a melting pot of cultures. There never has been a dominant culture not really (Culture tends to exist in flux of different internal cultural ideas, in conflict. The idea of a national shared culture is really a myth, rather there are a number of shared and disputed ideas about national culture).

Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie.

It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so.

I also find your ideas on 'dominant culture' to be way off. To say that generations of peoples who live in the same areas don't share rituals, language and knowledge bases and hence a culture is just wrong. You nit pick in proving your point but its more a play of words than an actual convincing argument. I think its related to dislike of nationality rather than a balanced analysis of what culture is.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jun 15 3.08pm
Quote TheJudge at 05 Jun 2015 1.16pm I don't strongly disagree with what you say. It is a question of the language we use to describe things. I think it is easy to make sweeping statements regardless of your politics but when we get down to specifics we must be more honest. You are right that "culture" is in flux and often borrowed from other cultures. The word itself is a lazy inadequate word. In the real world,this country has changed dramatically in my life time in so many ways,many not foe the better. Immigration has undoubtedly been responsible for a lot of that how ever you want to spin it. I would admit that there have been positives and I would embrace those but the rate of immigrants is far far too rapid and many have not integrated. If there was an end point to this influx then one could see a less turbulent future but as one group integrates, another is queuing up behind them. Change is inevitable through time, but for one or two generations to experience such change is difficult. For the future generations, it will be the norm. I would suggest that the problem isn't so much one of migration per se, but the impact that has had on wages and employment among working class British citizens. The failure of the minimum wage to be linked to inflation or the actual cost of living in areas, has created an environment where people are priced out of working, whilst those overseas, typically being young, single, can afford to work for much lower wages, especially given the exchange rates to their home nation (coming to work in the UK is a very good way to create a nest egg in say Poland). The reason for the supposed 'rise in racism' in the working class has nothing to do with a) race or b) nationalism, not really, its about erosion of wages by UK employers maximizing profitability by utilizing cheap migrant temporary labour. I believe that the political parties of the UK like to make it about Nationalism, because of course they can pursue other agendas, and keep their corporate sponsors happy. I also believe that migrant workers also are quite heavily exploited by their employers, in a manner that they'd never get away with if their employees were british. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jun 15 3.08pm

Quote TheJudge at 05 Jun 2015 1.16pm

I would suggest that the problem isn't so much one of migration per se, but the impact that has had on wages and employment among working class British citizens.

The failure of the minimum wage to be linked to inflation or the actual cost of living in areas, has created an environment where people are priced out of working, whilst those overseas, typically being young, single, can afford to work for much lower wages, especially given the exchange rates to their home nation (coming to work in the UK is a very good way to create a nest egg in say Poland).

The reason for the supposed 'rise in racism' in the working class has nothing to do with a) race or b) nationalism, not really, its about erosion of wages by UK employers maximizing profitability by utilizing cheap migrant temporary labour.

I believe that the political parties of the UK like to make it about Nationalism, because of course they can pursue other agendas, and keep their corporate sponsors happy.

I also believe that migrant workers also are quite heavily exploited by their employers, in a manner that they'd never get away with if their employees were british.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jun 15 3.20pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.08pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts. Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled. During early periods of Norman rule, you had Normans, Norman Franks, Saxons, Angles, Danish, Jute, Dane, Cymri and celtic peoples making up the population of England in significant numbers or positions of authority. Europe has always been a melting pot of cultures. There never has been a dominant culture not really (Culture tends to exist in flux of different internal cultural ideas, in conflict. The idea of a national shared culture is really a myth, rather there are a number of shared and disputed ideas about national culture). Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie. It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so. I also find your ideas on 'dominant culture' to be way off. To say that generations of peoples who live in the same areas don't share rituals, language and knowledge bases and hence a culture is just wrong. You nit pick in proving your point but its more a play of words than an actual convincing argument. I think its related to dislike of nationality rather than a balanced analysis of what culture is. I think people in areas do share rituals, dialects (culturfied language) and ideas, but these are localized, knowledge and regionalized, rather than national - but I also believe that these factors are not shared in a 'we are all of agreement' but exist in conflict. I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people. Is there really a culture that connects people from Cornwall, Berkshire, Essex, Norfolk, Yorkshire and binds them with Belfast, Glasgow and Bridge end? That's shared - I'd argue that British National Culture exists on the basis of the differences of ideas between those groups than the similarities shared. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jun 15 3.20pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am

The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts.

Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled.

Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie.

It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so.

I think people in areas do share rituals, dialects (culturfied language) and ideas, but these are localized, knowledge and regionalized, rather than national - but I also believe that these factors are not shared in a 'we are all of agreement' but exist in conflict.

I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people.

Is there really a culture that connects people from Cornwall, Berkshire, Essex, Norfolk, Yorkshire and binds them with Belfast, Glasgow and Bridge end? That's shared - I'd argue that British National Culture exists on the basis of the differences of ideas between those groups than the similarities shared.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jun 15 3.27pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.08pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts. Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled. During early periods of Norman rule, you had Normans, Norman Franks, Saxons, Angles, Danish, Jute, Dane, Cymri and celtic peoples making up the population of England in significant numbers or positions of authority. Europe has always been a melting pot of cultures. There never has been a dominant culture not really (Culture tends to exist in flux of different internal cultural ideas, in conflict. The idea of a national shared culture is really a myth, rather there are a number of shared and disputed ideas about national culture). Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie. It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so. I also find your ideas on 'dominant culture' to be way off. To say that generations of peoples who live in the same areas don't share rituals, language and knowledge bases and hence a culture is just wrong. You nit pick in proving your point but its more a play of words than an actual convincing argument. I think its related to dislike of nationality rather than a balanced analysis of what culture is. It was never accepted. Culture is based in the very nature of conflicting ideas, being resolved through historical discourse within society (not necessarily by violence). For example, cultural imperitives about race, gender and sexuality, have developed through conflicting ideas about those subjects, and their expression and conflict with the 'dominant idea of their time' and resulted in change. Change is of course neither good, nor bad, it just is, the subjective value judgement generally is about which factional idea you identify with and how it fares, rather than any real truth. The Celts didn't welcome the Romans, nor the Cymri the Saxons, but for us, we see it inevitably as a good thing, because it creates our world (ie that Ultimately the Saxons, and then the Normans would go on to inform our culture, and ultimately we end up in a position where we are judging the 'value' from our position, which of course is inherently biased by the 'victor'. Which of course is why so few people speak Gallic and so many speak English (Saxon and Norman dominance). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jun 15 3.27pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am

The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts.

Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled.

Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie.

It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so.

It was never accepted. Culture is based in the very nature of conflicting ideas, being resolved through historical discourse within society (not necessarily by violence).

For example, cultural imperitives about race, gender and sexuality, have developed through conflicting ideas about those subjects, and their expression and conflict with the 'dominant idea of their time' and resulted in change.

Change is of course neither good, nor bad, it just is, the subjective value judgement generally is about which factional idea you identify with and how it fares, rather than any real truth.

The Celts didn't welcome the Romans, nor the Cymri the Saxons, but for us, we see it inevitably as a good thing, because it creates our world (ie that Ultimately the Saxons, and then the Normans would go on to inform our culture, and ultimately we end up in a position where we are judging the 'value' from our position, which of course is inherently biased by the 'victor'.

Which of course is why so few people speak Gallic and so many speak English (Saxon and Norman dominance).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 3.41pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Jun 2015 12.52pm Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 12.04pm Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jun 2015 11.57am Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 11.53am But why should nationality even play a role in tragedy? Is it sadder if a British stranger dies than a Libyan one? Of course it is. Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan? If so why? Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am) But why does nationality come in to it? There are British citizens who go out to fight for ISIS, do I feel sympathy when they die, or am I only meant to be feeling pity for those British people who have those wonderful British values which no one seems to be able to identify objectively? No but you also probably feel a greater anger. Its generally because we 'share' something with those people and that in turn makes the event more relevant to us and our attention. This occurs apriori, as we look at the world in relation to ourselves and our experiences, and so pay attention when factors we relate to ourselves are present in stories. Its how we understand the world and our place in it, is through relationships in the external world and our internal being. Its a maladaptation (a beneficial evolutionary trait that has begun to outlive its benefit, but still remains present in a species because its not detrimental). Value doesn't really come into it. These events are more real, because they're more relevant. I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity. The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality. Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 3.41pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Jun 2015 12.52pm

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 12.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jun 2015 11.57am

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 11.53am

But why should nationality even play a role in tragedy? Is it sadder if a British stranger dies than a Libyan one?

Of course it is.

Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan?

If so why?

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am)

But why does nationality come in to it? There are British citizens who go out to fight for ISIS, do I feel sympathy when they die, or am I only meant to be feeling pity for those British people who have those wonderful British values which no one seems to be able to identify objectively?

No but you also probably feel a greater anger.

Its generally because we 'share' something with those people and that in turn makes the event more relevant to us and our attention. This occurs apriori, as we look at the world in relation to ourselves and our experiences, and so pay attention when factors we relate to ourselves are present in stories. Its how we understand the world and our place in it, is through relationships in the external world and our internal being.

Its a maladaptation (a beneficial evolutionary trait that has begun to outlive its benefit, but still remains present in a species because its not detrimental).

Value doesn't really come into it. These events are more real, because they're more relevant.

I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality.

Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jun 15 3.53pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 3.20pm I think people in areas do share rituals, dialects (culturfied language) and ideas, but these are localized, knowledge and regionalized, rather than national - but I also believe that these factors are not shared in a 'we are all of agreement' but exist in conflict. I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people. Is there really a culture that connects people from Cornwall, Berkshire, Essex, Norfolk, Yorkshire and binds them with Belfast, Glasgow and Bridge end? That's shared - I'd argue that British National Culture exists on the basis of the differences of ideas between those groups than the similarities shared. I would agree with a lot of that....There is undoubtedly differences within national cultures of all types....Just as there is within age groups. However, while the connection that exists in culture between a Geordie and me could be described as less strong it's still true that we share a language...just....but more important a national historical connection and knowledge that create a link. It exists.....Just as there exists a culture of the personality...A link between peoples that can override national boundaries when two people just hit it off because they are just similar characters even though they don't share first languages or shared historical links. Cultures or links aren't required to be exact but rather just similar for a connection to exist. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jun 15 3.53pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 3.20pm

I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people.

I would agree with a lot of that....There is undoubtedly differences within national cultures of all types....Just as there is within age groups.

However, while the connection that exists in culture between a Geordie and me could be described as less strong it's still true that we share a language...just....but more important a national historical connection and knowledge that create a link.

It exists.....Just as there exists a culture of the personality...A link between peoples that can override national boundaries when two people just hit it off because they are just similar characters even though they don't share first languages or shared historical links.

Cultures or links aren't required to be exact but rather just similar for a connection to exist.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 05 Jun 15 3.55pm
All these highfalutin theories (and that is what they are) are entertaining to read. The basic problems are still that people prefer to live with people of the same race, first language, cultural outlook and religion. In most cities and towns there are enclaves of people grouped together of the same race, language, culture and religion - often at odds with other immigrant groups. Some cities and towns with very large populations of immigrants experience 'white flight' as those people simply do not want to live with the incomers and resent the enormous transformation of their home areas. There was much flight from London to East Anglia - there is now flight from East Anglia due to uncontrollable EU immigration which is transforming those areas beyond recognition. Edited by derben (05 Jun 2015 3.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

05 Jun 15 3.55pm

All these highfalutin theories (and that is what they are) are entertaining to read. The basic problems are still that people prefer to live with people of the same race, first language, cultural outlook and religion. In most cities and towns there are enclaves of people grouped together of the same race, language, culture and religion - often at odds with other immigrant groups. Some cities and towns with very large populations of immigrants experience 'white flight' as those people simply do not want to live with the incomers and resent the enormous transformation of their home areas. There was much flight from London to East Anglia - there is now flight from East Anglia due to uncontrollable EU immigration which is transforming those areas beyond recognition.

Edited by derben (05 Jun 2015 3.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 05 Jun 15 3.58pm
Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity. The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality. Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea. Nope, you're just wrong though your hubris is enjoyable to read. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

05 Jun 15 3.58pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm

I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

Nope, you're just wrong though your hubris is enjoyable to read.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 4.03pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.53pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 3.20pm I think people in areas do share rituals, dialects (culturfied language) and ideas, but these are localized, knowledge and regionalized, rather than national - but I also believe that these factors are not shared in a 'we are all of agreement' but exist in conflict. I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people. Is there really a culture that connects people from Cornwall, Berkshire, Essex, Norfolk, Yorkshire and binds them with Belfast, Glasgow and Bridge end? That's shared - I'd argue that British National Culture exists on the basis of the differences of ideas between those groups than the similarities shared. I would agree with a lot of that....There is undoubtedly differences within national cultures of all types....Just as there is within age groups. However, while the connection that exists in culture between a Geordie and me could be described as less strong it's still true that we share a language...just....but more important a national historical connection and knowledge that create a link. It exists.....Just as there exists a culture of the personality...A link between peoples that can override national boundaries when two people just hit it off because they are just similar characters even though they don't share first languages or shared historical links. Cultures or links aren't required to be exact but rather just similar for a connection to exist. But Stirling, why is that cultural connection stronger between, say, a Welshman and a Geordie than it is between a Brit and a Romanian? They may well have equally conflicting first languages, totally different physical make ups, different economic backgrounds, certainly different cultural ones....yet one opposition we have no concerns with, while the other we regard as substantial enough that we have to prevent them from spatially integrating. I maintain that nationality is based on just as superstitious and presumptive grounds as any religion. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 4.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.53pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 3.20pm

I've never really seen a definition of British Culture that's applicable to all British people.

I would agree with a lot of that....There is undoubtedly differences within national cultures of all types....Just as there is within age groups.

However, while the connection that exists in culture between a Geordie and me could be described as less strong it's still true that we share a language...just....but more important a national historical connection and knowledge that create a link.

Cultures or links aren't required to be exact but rather just similar for a connection to exist.

But Stirling, why is that cultural connection stronger between, say, a Welshman and a Geordie than it is between a Brit and a Romanian? They may well have equally conflicting first languages, totally different physical make ups, different economic backgrounds, certainly different cultural ones....yet one opposition we have no concerns with, while the other we regard as substantial enough that we have to prevent them from spatially integrating.

I maintain that nationality is based on just as superstitious and presumptive grounds as any religion.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 25 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Britain a racist country?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors