advertisement


What does it mean to you to be English?

Being English is built on colonialism, and continues so to be


True enough. Although the bulk of the "English" population are actually amongst those so exploited. Often by people with a non-UK background who syphon Uk-based/created wealth overseas.
 
I disagree. The Industrial Revolution brought the UK out of feudal times and in many cases effective slavery.

yes and no, m'lud. ... and I used the term 'lud' here deliberately. Many people died as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In effect, those with wealth and power in England treated the poor there pretty much as they did those abroad. As disposable assets.
 
Good:
  • We stopped the Nazis in 1940, and I believe that if we'd capitulated, even the US would have succumbed to the Nazis
No, you didn't - you avoided being invaded and subjugated, but you certainly didn't stop them, because they kept right on going. So far as Hitler was concerned, you were stuck on your little island, going nowhere, so he could turn to projects closer to his heart, such as the creation of Lebensraum for the thousand-year Reich. I know it's part of the British mythology of plucky little Britain standing alone, but it wasn't alone - it had the resources of an Empire behind it.

I know Churchill said in one of those wonderfully melodramatic speeches that, if Britain succumbed, even the USA would succumb, but I doubt it. The fact that the USA was on the far side of a vast ocean frustrated the life out of the Nazis. They would have loved to have struck at the US cities, but never managed (the Japanese fired some rounds at US west coast cities and facilities, and even dropped a few bombs from submarine-carried floatplanes, but they were never more than pinpricks).

The other thing was that the USA was not merely a rival country but a rival continent, with the means of production far exceeding that of all of Europe, which, once it got going, would produce Nazi Germany into the ground. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said it best - I fear that we have wakened a sleeping giant and have filled him with a terrible resolve. Hitler very foolishly did exactly that, and paid the price.
 
An interesting question.

My personal feelings fall both into good and bad:

Good:
  • We resulted in English being a fairly common "world" language, certainly so in say aviation
  • We instituted governance via the civil service in a number of countries of the world. The fact that they are still in a semblance of use fairly wells justifies it
  • Our civil service, very much attempts to be egalitarian in it's treatment of it's staff (don't get me wrong, the policies that they're OBLIGED to implement on behalf of kleptocratic rulers might not be, but that's another story)
  • The massive number of inventions that were created and introduced
  • We stopped the Nazis in 1940, and I believe that if we'd capitulated, even the US would have succumbed to the Nazis
  • We were a leading country in stopping the slave trade, e.g. the Atlantic squadron
  • The introduction post WW2 of the NHS, Welfare state, National Insurance etc
  • We did give back ex-colonies and I believe "tried" to do it in a reasonable manner
  • As a country, and despite a level of scuminess, a basic ability to assimilate other races, nationalities and religions in a fairly harmonious way
  • Linked to the above, the ability to meld together disparate groups in other areas. For example, in India. Whilst the EIC did their best to f..k over everyone, the country was basically unified during it's time in the British Empire and until it fell to pieces with the very unfriendly partitioning into India and Pakistan, which I do feel we were give a bit of a bad rap for. Whilst there is a degree of blame, I believe the resultant atrocities don't sit primarily with us
  • We have a lovely looking country (in some places), some great suits, Aston Martin's and Jags look great
  • The BBC
  • We created the TV series such as UFO and Space1999
Bad:
  • The sheer level of corruption that has existed within the country for centuries and how it permeates the running of the country
  • The East India Company (EIC) (best example) and how it was sanctioned to do what it did, which was basically rip off any country it touched (primarily India), pushed Opium into China and when it struggled, asked for support from Britain which was kindly provided with our Navy. All the time, the profits going to the "few" within the EIC and their mates, whilst the British taxpayer was paying for the Navy. Then when the EIC was wrapped up, they shareholders were paid an absolutely HUGE sum of money by the British taxpayer as compensation
  • The British involvement in the slave trade. No, I don't believe that we established it. Slavery has existed since records began, so basically since civilisation existed (ironic eh). However, we did give another "market" for the slave traders based in Africa. Again, primarily for the profit of the few. And also again, when it was stopped within the British Empire, another MASSIVE payout to the few as compensation, again paid for by the taxpayer
  • The desire to destroy the welfare state and similar, primarily to give the cash to the already super rich. How is it that our laws permit "offshore tax havens", the ability to syphon of billions from a company for it's shareholders, and then walk away from it's wreckage?
  • The complete lack of application of accountability for our politicians
  • Involvement in say the coop of the Iranian president in the early 1950s, just such that some US mates in oil could get rich
  • Our press/media. Just awful. Free speech is great, until you have the Daily Fail, The Outrage and similar, i.e. primarily bs or stupidly exaggerated
  • We appear to have companies now run at the behest of accountants. I know that they're there to make money, but what about ethics, making high quality products, like say Germany, Switzerland or Japan has done?
once the good and the bad on each list have cancelled each other out, what are we left with?

For me the good is the creation of the NHS. A seismic moment in History.

The bad is that we are, bit by bit, having it taken away from us. An act of National Insanity.

Is the problem that we are not proud enough of our NHS?
 
True enough. Although the bulk of the "English" population are actually amongst those so exploited. Often by people with a non-UK background who syphon Uk-based/created wealth overseas.
Yes, old colonialism plundered foreign lands, it has merely morphed into plundering the nation state.
 
yes and no, m'lud. ... and I used the term 'lud' here deliberately. Many people died as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In effect, those with wealth and power in England treated the poor there pretty much as they did those abroad. As disposable assets.
I didn't say it happened overnight. As I said earlier, it has to be viewed in the light of history and the cultural norms of the time. Of course if you bring someone out of a field where they are indentured labour and only have a home in exchange for X hours work a week and put them in a factory that you have just built, you won't immediately change them to being a homeowning skilled worker with autonomy over where they ply their trade. That takes time, and that's why it was a revolution. It involved decades, a century, of societal change.
 
Being English is built on colonialism, and continues so to be

Not really, my grandfather and great grandfather served in British army in India, Afghanistan (grandfather born in India) - that’s the “Irish side” of the family. Britain wouldn’t have had colonies/empire without Irish, Scottish and Welsh troops.

I used to consider myself English, despite knowing about my Irish heritage.
I recently took a DNA heritage test - about 75% English/Irish/ Welsh and the shock: about 25% French/German (smidgeon of Finnish in there :oops:).
being English a state of mind?
 
No, you didn't - you avoided being invaded and subjugated, but you certainly didn't stop them, because they kept right on going. So far as Hitler was concerned, you were stuck on your little island, going nowhere, so he could turn to projects closer to his heart, such as the creation of Lebensraum for the thousand-year Reich. I know it's part of the British mythology of plucky little Britain standing alone, but it wasn't alone - it had the resources of an Empire behind it.

I know Churchill said in one of those wonderfully melodramatic speeches that, if Britain succumbed, even the USA would succumb, but I doubt it. The fact that the USA was on the far side of a vast ocean frustrated the life out of the Nazis. They would have loved to have struck at the US cities, but never managed (the Japanese fired some rounds at US west coast cities and facilities, and even dropped a few bombs from submarine-carried floatplanes, but they were never more than pinpricks).

The other thing was that the USA was not merely a rival country but a rival continent, with the means of production far exceeding that of all of Europe, which, once it got going, would produce Nazi Germany into the ground. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said it best - I fear that we have wakened a sleeping giant and have filled him with a terrible resolve. Hitler very foolishly did exactly that, and paid the price.

I don’t believe it to be anything like that simple.
My logic being that if the UK had capitulated after say the invasion of France:
- Neither the RAF of Luftwaffe would have had the losses during the Battle of Britain. For ref, approx 1/3 or all Luftwaffe air crew were lost
- The Tizard mission wouldn’t have happened. That means no cavity magnetron, no jet engine, and no chaps from Birmingham convincing their equivalents in the US to build the A bomb
- you may have noticed how effective the German army was in assimilating troops from other countries. I could very much picture them doing that to the Royal Navy, RAF and army.
- when the Germans invade Russia, they now get to call on not only their own army, but also the British army. More importantly would be the extra air crew and aircraft from the RAF and those not lost in the BOB. Barbarrossa is successful with the additional resources available and Russia is taken under Nazi control
- the British empire hands over access to the oil in the Middle East and has the merchant navy to move it
- uranium for the German bomb can be sourced from ex British colonies
- The Royal Navy patrol the Atlantic and Indian Ocean to prevent shipments to and from the US
- the British don’t source armaments from the US. The requirement for the P51 for the UK never happens and packard aren’t given the designs for the Merlin engine
- British and German engineers collaborate on jet engines and the Germans have access to the alloys required to enable their jet engines to run for more than 25hours before melting

Take the above as reasonably likely scenarios, would the US even bother coming out of its slumber of non-interventionism? I wouldn’t have been surprised if the hard right in the US backed Hitler, just as some now consider Putin to be OK.

If the US did fight, the Nazis could choose where to land, would have a lot of combat experience vs not much, and might have waited until they had jets and the A Bomb. The background for the Man in the High Castle is not looking too unreasonable
 
No, you didn't - you avoided being invaded and subjugated, but you certainly didn't stop them, because they kept right on going. So far as Hitler was concerned, you were stuck on your little island, going nowhere, so he could turn to projects closer to his heart, such as the creation of Lebensraum for the thousand-year Reich. I know it's part of the British mythology of plucky little Britain standing alone, but it wasn't alone - it had the resources of an Empire behind it.

I know Churchill said in one of those wonderfully melodramatic speeches that, if Britain succumbed, even the USA would succumb, but I doubt it. The fact that the USA was on the far side of a vast ocean frustrated the life out of the Nazis. They would have loved to have struck at the US cities, but never managed (the Japanese fired some rounds at US west coast cities and facilities, and even dropped a few bombs from submarine-carried floatplanes, but they were never more than pinpricks).

The other thing was that the USA was not merely a rival country but a rival continent, with the means of production far exceeding that of all of Europe, which, once it got going, would produce Nazi Germany into the ground. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said it best - I fear that we have wakened a sleeping giant and have filled him with a terrible resolve. Hitler very foolishly did exactly that, and paid the price.
And the Soviets...the Eastern campaign did for the Nazis. The toll by the USSR was immense.
 
No, you didn't - you avoided being invaded and subjugated, but you certainly didn't stop them, because they kept right on going. So far as Hitler was concerned, you were stuck on your little island, going nowhere, so he could turn to projects closer to his heart, such as the creation of Lebensraum for the thousand-year Reich. I know it's part of the British mythology of plucky little Britain standing alone, but it wasn't alone - it had the resources of an Empire behind it.

You’re quite right.
Sorry, I hadn’t meant to say it quite that way.
What I intended to say was that we stopped the Germans invading the UK. Clearly we didn’t stop them elsewhere, that was the Russians.
 
You’re quite right.
Sorry, I hadn’t meant to say it quite that way.
What I intended to say was that we stopped the Germans invading the UK. Clearly we didn’t stop them elsewhere, that was the Russians.
Yes indeed, the Russian losses were immense. Both civilian and military. I just looked it up again - 8.6M military, from a total of 27M losses, all causes, of which a lot simply starved. It's staggering.
 
yes and no, m'lud. ... and I used the term 'lud' here deliberately. Many people died as a result of the Industrial Revolution. In effect, those with wealth and power in England treated the poor there pretty much as they did those abroad. As disposable assets.
The same can be said of agricultural workers, labourers of all kinds, craftsmen in hard times, sailors. A lot depended on the decency or otherwise of the landowners, shipowners. People actually starved to death in adverse circumstances. But certainly the IR modified a part of society and made it in many ways more impersonal, and without the comforts of a stable culture rooted in the land.
As for abroad, I wonder if in general the English treated the Indians or Africans any worse than they treated each other before the English took over. As already said in previous posts, slavery and serfdom existed forever. The ancient Hebrew had slaves, as did Egyptians,Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Moguls, Persians, and the peoples of Africa and Asia.
 
Not really, my grandfather and great grandfather served in British army in India, Afghanistan (grandfather born in India) - that’s the “Irish side” of the family. Britain wouldn’t have had colonies/empire without Irish, Scottish and Welsh troops.

I used to consider myself English, despite knowing about my Irish heritage.
I recently took a DNA heritage test - about 75% English/Irish/ Welsh and the shock: about 25% French/German (smidgeon of Finnish in there :oops:).
being English a state of mind?
Apologies, I was merely referencing an economic point already made elsewhere in that colonialism hasn’t gone away, it has merely turned from plundering foreign lands to plundering the nation state.
 
Yes indeed, the Russian losses were immense. Both civilian and military. I just looked it up again - 8.6M military, from a total of 27M losses, all causes, of which a lot simply starved. It's staggering.
But what is often forgotten is that up to June 1941, Stalin and Hitler were best friends, and agreed to carve up most of eastern Europe between them.
 
Yes indeed, the Russian losses were immense. Both civilian and military. I just looked it up again - 8.6M military, from a total of 27M losses, all causes, of which a lot simply starved. It's staggering.

Thing is, in Russia leaders consider human life as cheap and merely a resource. You can blame the Tsars mostly for that but Stalin played a role.
 
Apologies, I was merely referencing an economic point already made elsewhere in that colonialism hasn’t gone away, it has merely turned from plundering foreign lands to plundering the nation state.

If anything, the current equivalent of colonialism is potentially worse.
Now we have examples like Iraq being invaded and for what? The quoted reasons have been debunked. It’s almost as though it was for the oil, or the opportunity to sell more weapons and conduct 3rd party contracting.
If you think of the human casualties, I struggle with any form of justification.

In Western Africa, there’s at least one country being destroyed to keep the shareholders of Shell happy.


At least during colonialism the country subjugating the other tended to stop in-fighting of local tribes or factions.
 
"Junk from around the world"? Who is that? "who are then given more rights"? No. Don't believe what you read in the right-wing hate papers.
No papers, I saw this in my own county of residence in the UK.
Non-contributants, those that want to change the UK to the same as the very country they departed, first in the queue for hand outs, extremists, no desire to fit in, etc.
Sorry, it's real, don't like it, don't want it. Those who do like it, you can have it.
 
Last edited:


advertisement


Back
Top