ThunderDragon Blog

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.

Teaching about slavery is to become a compulsory subject in secondary school history classes.

Schoolchildren will learn about the roles of William Wilberforce, the MP who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, and Olaudah Equiano, a former slave who drew attention to the horrors of the trade after buying his freedom and writing an autobiography.

They will also be taught about the origins of the empire, with one unit looking at rise and fall of the Mughals in India and the arrival of the British. Another is titled “How was it that, by 1900, Britain controlled nearly a quarter of the world?” (The Telegraph)

This is, I suppose, a cause for celebration. After all, any British history being taught in schools is very nearly a miracle in itself.

However, the emphasis that is going to be given to the slave trade - “pupils will study the development of the slave trade, colonisation and the links between slavery, the British empire and the industrial revolution” - is just absurd. Slavery played a very very minor role in the British Empire and constituted a only as teeny-tiny amount of national income. And the work the Empire did after its abolition cost us more than the benefits we accrued . As did the entire Empire, despite the modern cries of “OPPRESHUN!11!” whenever the British Empire is mentioned.

Of course, slavery wasn’t exactly a high-point in British history. But, as I pointed out not long ago, history must be studied in context - the “why” is as important as the “what” and the “how”. And it must also be noted that slavery had a far greater impact on America than it ever did in Britain. [What is also interesting to note is that the party in America who were most anti-abolition and black equality is now the one about the nominate the first black presidential candidate.]

Educating our young people about slavery is good. But it must be done properly, and without allowing the usual massive exaggeration of its impact. And as much time should also be allocated to the fact that the British were by the far the first nation to ban slavery and spent so much fighting the trade.

The eternal problem with teaching history in school is that the necessity to make it a story, so as to keep the interest of the pupils, means that the balance is often lost in the narrative. With a subject as complicated and sensitive as slavery, balance is essential - meaning that no judgement should be passed by the material produced to teach with. This was massively lacking from the subject when I was taught about slavery in school about 8 years ago.*

To end on a bright note, that the British Empire will be a compulsory part of the secondary school curriculum is definitely a Good Thing. Even if the way they appear from the reports to want to teach it seems more-than-slightly** skewed to pass on the message that “Empire is bad” to our school children. But I credit them with enough intelligence to see through the worst of this.

* It was actually this sort of thing which drove me to make study of the British Empire to main focus of the history part of my degree and postgrad study.

** ie. fucking massively.

I’m not making it up.

The Electoral Commission wants to close a loophole that allows donations to political parties without declaring their name - by doing it under a corporate guise. The new proposals would make organisations such as the Midlands Industrial Council list their donors and the amounts given by them.

To be honest, the proposals seems pretty fair. If people want to donate to political parties, they should do so under their own name, and certainly not someone elses.

However, this proposal should also apply to trade unions, who receive funds and pass them on in pretty much the same way. Except these are not purely voluntary, as trade unions are not advertising the fact that members can opt out of paying a political levy, and are made up of a much larger number of smaller amounts. But apart from that, what is the difference? Both do exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way.

Personally, I think the best way to reform party funding would be to allow anyone on the electoral roll to donate as much as they like, but their name has to be recorded publically however much they donate - rather than allowing anyone who donates less than £5,000 to hide their names. If we are to have a truly transparent system, this is the only way to do it.

London is now the host city for the Olympics.

Just four years to go, and a lot to do. Beijing has set a high standard, and one we need to meet.

Medal-wise, we came back from Beijing having done excellently - in fourth place, with 19 golds, 13 silvers, and 15 bronzes. That’s going to be a hard achievement to beat in 2012. Though it might be possible if we can bring ping-pong home…

YouTube video via Daily Referendum

Infertility is, I am sure, an absolutely horrible thing to experience. A terrible infliction to be affected by, to want to conceive a child and not being able to for whatever reason. However, I can’t help but think that this not something that should be an NHS priority.

The NHS is there primarily to deal with injuries and illness that affect that person’s ability to live their own life, not to dedicate scarce resources to something that ‘only’ prevents them creating another life. IVF is certainly not a treatment that should be ignored, but there are far more important and vital treatments that should be put first.

Until the NHS can cope with providing the standard services, something like IVF should not be a priority for a taxpayer-funded National Health Service to provide. It definitely should be provided, but not to the detriment of other services.

But if this level of infertility treatment can be provided without adverse effect on the core services of the NHS, it should be.

Civil liberties are, it seems, a dying breed in modern Britain. No longer is an Englishman’s - or anyone elses - home their castle. Now we are under surveillance by the state even when we are in our home:

The sex lives of council-tax payers are being secretly monitored by local authority inspectors to establish whether residents claiming single person’s discounts are really living alone.

Undercover snoopers are being used to find out how often lovers visit and whether supposedly single residents are sharing a bed every night with the same person…

Local authorities have adopted the techniques after the government urged them to carry out “spot checks” on properties where a single-person council-tax discount is claimed. Councils are also demanding that householders give access to their bedrooms in return for the single-person discount. (The Times)

A large state means a surveillance state. The more they provide, the more spies they have to employ in order to check up on us, to ensure that we are doing things as they say we ought.

The British way of life used to rest on the principles of liberty and freedom. There was no way that the government could justify spying on the people as a matter of course. The right to privacy was inviolable.

But in the years since the Second World War, that has all changed. We now have CCTV that watches us every day, and a government and councils that requires more and more personal information from us. And now they want to check our bedrooms for underwear.

This is, unfortunately, only a few steps away from 1984 and the telescreen.*

*Please note that this means that I believe that New Labour is setting an unfortunate precedent, not that their intention is turn the UK into Airstrip One.

via Matt Wardman

Less than five months after I first moved to Wordpress, I have had another change - but just of theme this time.

I was getting a bit bored of the old one, but I think this one is far fresher and nicer, and hopefully more user friendly as well!

Please let me know what you think of the new design!

On my way back from V2008 last Tuesday, I listened to BBC 5Live to ensure I caught the final day of action from the Velodrome (and Chris Hoy’s historic hat-trick). Inbetween the updates from the Madison, there was the standard phone-in, notably people responding to suggestions that double gold-medal winner Becky Adlington should become Dame Rebecca - as Cassie Patten suggested live to the masses.

That morning, Dame Kelly Holmes had said that, in her opinion, Adlington isn’t ready for such an honour. But, as a lot of people were keen to point out - she became a Dame after a double victory. Is it just sour grapes?

Well, I generally feel that the honours system has been seriously devalued. Entire teams getting honours doesn’t value individual achievements. Especially when they get it for winning a single tournament that happens every 18 months.

There’s no doubt that most (if not all) of Team GBs gold medal winners deserve some recognition in form of honours. However, it’s about time we looked at the honours differently.

Honours should be a final achievement. The cherry on the top of a wonderful career - the hallmark of an amazing achievement. “Dame Kelly” as she’s known was given her honour at the end of her career, after a succession of international medals - the pinnacle of which came at Athens. Adlington is at the start of her career.

If we gave Adlington a Damehood now, what would we give her in 4 years time if she continues her success? The throne itself? And what about Chris Hoy with three golds at these games; or Ben Ainslie with 3 successive golds (an achievement Jacques Rogge today rated as good as Michael Phelps given the potentional number of medals available at each games)? Maybe a Duchy each?!

And from another angle - the stars themselves already have some reward - the silverware hanging around their necks. If anyone deserves an honour from these games, I’m going to suggest Shane Sutton (and Dave Brailsford MBE (yes, he’s got something already), as well as others in the British Cycling Team. You might not know the games - but without them Team GB might well have 7 gold medals fewer than they do at the minute…

Whilst the honours system should, erm, honour Britain’s greats - it should be especailly used for the ‘unsung’ heroes. Such as the lollypop lady who’s been helping kids cross the road for 30 years, rain or shine. And, regardless of the final medals tally, let’s not use the Beijing successes to look popular and trendy by giving honours again.

~Asp

The Northern Monkey is turning even more Northern next week, as he moves house. Until internet is established, there’ll obviously be no guest column. As the world breaths a huge sigh of relief…