Britishness. What is it? Quite possibly one of the most elusive concepts known to man.
Is it a racial concept? Not in my opinion. But others would disagree.
Is it culturally defined? Maybe.
Is it a constitutional arrangement? Yes, and no.
None of these are absolutely wrong, and none of it right. Really, the question “what is Britishness?” does not have an answer. For that answer relies almost entirely on where you are sitting. From where you look - depending on how your experiences in life have moulded you and your opinions - defines how you see and conceive the elusive and almost mythical concept of “Britishness”.
We have “symbols” of Britishness - the Union Flag, the Queen/Monarchy, Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament, National Anthem etc. - and we have “concepts” of britishness - liberty and freedom, democracy, equality and so on - and we have history to tie them all together. But none of these are Britishness. Even all together they don’t make it.
Because, in the end, Britishness can’t be defined once and for all. There is no all-encompassing “definition” of it. Everyone’s view is different. If you grew up in Scotland you have a different view to someone who grew up in Cornwall, if you grew up in Wales you have a different view to someone who grew up in East Anglia… And if you grew up rich, poor, middle-class, with parents that were left-wing, right-wing, apolitical, if you went to state school or public school… and so on and on and on. Not to mention the unique individuality of every single person.
Ask ten people to define Britishness and you’ll get twelve different answers. [Personally, I'd define Britishness as a ultimately cultural concept, born out of a belief in individual freedoms and a basically shared history, forged together through political union and personal experiences, and bolstered by the symbols of the nation. But that's just me.]
Frankly, attempting to define Britishness is, in the end, like emptying a bucket with a sieve. Excruciatingly slow going and frankly idiotic.
* Or maybe the beer-holder. One or the other.
It was a difficult concept to pin down, but standing up for the fundamental values of this country e.g. free speech, democracy, freedom of expression would be a good start.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
I don’t believe in it. It’s now absolutely rubbish. There’s English, Scots and Welsh. The Union is dead and has been since the late 1990s. Britishness is now something UK politicians use to suppress and befuddle the people of England.
And if you asked a Scot to define Britishness, he/she would probably say it was irrevelant to him/her.
The last newly-created British citizen was probably the British-born child of an immigrant, or an African immigrant collecting his new British passport.
You must ask them what Britishness is if you do not look to Britain’s history or its native peoples.
Only the last-in can even begin to sum up all of its cultural depth and diversity if you insist on such criteria.
The want of a definition is only the problem it is because of the truth of Maria’s and Jim’s comments.
When it was ‘only’ a matter of unifying the peoples of Great Britian (and Ireland) the ideal of ‘Britishness’ was tough enough, and ultimately beyond its peoples.
Now, when, as Jimbo points out, hundreds of Africans of numerous nationalities, plus hundreds of Asians likewise, plus god only knows what else, are made ‘British’ every day, then whatever characterises them and their communities becomes ‘British’; be it female circumcision, rejection of democracy, murderous old-country political and ethnic resentments, voodoo, anti-English and anti-White hatred…. and on and on.
This is the price for our insane refusal post WWII to say Britain is ours - it belongs to the peoples of Britain.
When they gave that right to numerous peoples and Africa and Asia, our leaders simultaneously denied it to us; and the Africans and Asians who triumphantly booted us out promptly followed us back here to colonise us.
BNP voter - everything you have just said is utterly wrong, and disgusting.
Britishness, if it is anything, is about inclusion. If you believe, as you appear to, in a racial definition of Britishness, then you obviously haven’t got a clue. The “native” people of Britain aren’t all of one race. To start with, we’re a mongrel race with vestiges of the many many nationalities that have inhabited our shores through invasion or immigration long before either of the world wars were even a distant possibility. And there is a distinct enough difference between the Scottish, Welsh, and English in purely racial terms to make a mockery of any attempt to use that as a definition.
To be honest, the only racial similarity we truly share is the colour of our skin. And if that is your criteria, well, then “Britishness” expands well outside our borders.
BNP voter - everything you have just said is utterly wrong, and disgusting.
Everything I just said is true. The idea that Britain belongs to the British peoples is only as disgusting as the idea that India belongs to the Indians (see Gandhi) or that Tibet belongs to the Tibetans (see the Dalai Lama), or that “England belongs to the English” (a direct quote from the Mahatma!).
More important than specific examples is the *principle* that indigenous peoples have a right not to be dispossessed of their homelands. This principle, if forgotten or denied, permits imperialism and ethnic cleansing (as the examples of India, Tibet - and Britain all attest).
Britishness, if it is anything, is about inclusion. If you believe, as you appear to, in a racial definition of Britishness, then you obviously haven’t got a clue.
Didn’t I comment on the vastness of British ‘inclusivism’ and the mind-boggling diversity of its peoples? Britain is the world = Britain isn’t anything!
The “native” people of Britain aren’t all of one race.
The native peoples of Britian are all White peoples. Race is usally these days used for the big-continental groupings, ethnic groups are the subsets thereof. I’m using the usual contemporary terms.
To start with, we’re a mongrel race with vestiges of the many many nationalities that have inhabited our shores through invasion or immigration long before either of the world wars were even a distant possibility. And there is a distinct enough difference between the Scottish, Welsh, and English in purely racial terms to make a mockery of any attempt to use that as a definition.
Except for the race-ethnic group distinction I made earlier, I agree with all of that. But I don’t see its importance - every ethnic group on the planet is descended from diverse other ethnic groups and migrations. It does not mean we had a right to colonise the lands of the mongrel-race Maoris, or the mongrel-race Apaches.
Please note though, that when you say “there is a distinct enough difference between…” you are refuting the argument you are about to make about the indigenous British peoples being inditinguishable… doh!
(And how come it’s only ever White peoples who are dismissively labelled ‘mongrel-races’ and told that this status removes certain rights from them?)
To be honest, the only racial similarity we truly share is the colour of our skin. And if that is your criteria, well, then “Britishness” expands well outside our borders.
See. Self-refuting. But if you want to get into that discussion, fine. Your problem is that genes and phenotype and culture are extremely consistent with one another - even within the continental races. See a recent study on European diversity here:
500K SNP Europe-wide study of genetic structure
The importance of this for YOUR freedom / democracy = Britishness argument is made clear when you look at this map from Freedom House: Freedom is a White thing…
Oh, I see I misunderstood your comment about the racial diversity of nativus Britannicus. Still, it changes nothing in my argument. If we value diversity the tighter we draw the circles the better, of course.
British culture (as opposed to the cultures of Britain) was never anything more than the celebration of imperial military and economic might, dressed with a few mostly English and (London) metropolitan borrowings.
Now the Empire’s gone, all we’re left with is a political/legal Britishness which is as much of an “identity” as “European”. It tells you nothing about an individual other than their right to residency and, perhaps, where they were born. That is not an identity.
The minority of people in Britain define themselves primarily as British - 20% in Scotland and, adjusted to account for greater immigration, 30-40% in England - and those numbers are shrinking, particularly in England. I suspect that if you made an allowance for those people who confuse “English” and “British”, they would be fewer still.
Good lord,you must have a weak stomach TD. I can’t even imagine the offending word or idea which caused you not to pass my comment.
Was it “England belongs to the English”?
Personally, I think that’s one of the Mahatma’s finest moral statements. It means: race replacement immigration is wrong. And who would disagree?
BNP voter, if I had intentionally not allowed your comment through, why would I have allowed the second and your comment accusing me of not letting it through through? Use logic. It was just caught by the spam filter.
Your racial-based arguments are completely rubbish. There is no coherent argument contained in them. Race/Ethnicity =/= Nationality. Nationality is something that develops from experiences far more than it can ever generate from “race”.
“Britishness” is a concept to which some subscribe, and some don’t.
TD, I make no racial-based arguments - you do.
It is you who says the British peoples have no rights as indigenous peoples because they are a “mongrel-race.”
And why is it it’s only ever White peoples who are called ‘mongrel-races’?
When one of our politicians is invited to speak at an Indian or Jewish business gala (the English don’t have group celebrations and politicians would attack them if they did), why doesn’t he laugh and say “Jews? - what is a ‘Jew’ anyway? They’re just a mongrel race from old Araby. …Which reminds me, why does our party support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? That’s racist! … And we should go back into India too - if our people want to live there, what right do ‘Indians’ have to say no? It’s not their country!”
Why do ‘our’ politicians and media and intellectuals discriminate against us? Can it be healthy? Can we survive it?
I wish you’d quote me rather than paraphrase me TD. I don’t equate ethnicity, race and nationalism. You’re right that the common sentiment which creates the right soil for nationhood is developed over long stretches of time and shared experience and common interest.
It just so happens that these obviously, inevitably, attach to ethnic groups, and just as obviously are not available to an ethnically diverse population only recently come together.
The trend even among Britain’s indigenous peoples is toward separation. 300 years after the Act of Union, Scotland, Wales, and England are re-dividing politically along ethnic lines (just as did the Soviet Union, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and as Belgium and various African states are doing now).
Look at the English! You pointed out their diverse origins. Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans, Britons, and others, did not come together peacefully. They fought centuries of wars before finally blending into one ethny.
Madness to have started the process all over again! And we’re back full ciircle to my first post in this thread. And you haven’t refuted anything I’ve said TD.
It is you who says the British peoples have no rights as indigenous peoples because they are a “mongrel-race.”
Not in the slightest! I just can’t see an indigenous British people, as one doesn’t exist. I can see no racial basis for it. Some other nations may have a racial basis, but Britain isn’t one of them.
You can believe this obviously false conclusion. That is part of the point of my post - that Britishness is in the eye of the beholder. Even if they are totally wrong.
And I’m not going to waste any more of my valuable time debating it with you. If you want to profess it, go start your own blog.
The English, Scots and Welsh are ALL indigenous to Britain. Where the hell else do you think they originated? If we don’t qualify there are NO indigenous peoples anywhere. Or is this another racist double-standard we must suffer in the name of anti-racism?
You say “Some other nations may have a racial basis, but Britain isn’t one of them.” That’s the second time now - you begin to look dishonest TD: I’ve already said ‘Britishness’ includes practically every variety of human fauna on the globe.
As to halting your debate with me, you haven’t even begun it mate.