[Matthew12]

From reading many of the debates/topics surrounding the theme or topic of what is it to be English/British and some posters holding the view that certain members of British society cannot be regarded as English like Muslims due to things like Muslim men wearing thawb and hijab/niqab and Islam having a conservative attitude to issues like homosexuality.

I was wondering then if that is the case would the Victorians be considered to be British/English by some posters standards seeing as they were quite puritan and very conservative in their outlook, and obviously their culture was very different from what we see of British/English culture today.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Matthew12)
From reading many of the debates/topics surrounding the theme or topic of what is it to be English/British and some posters holding the view that certain members of British society cannot be regarded as English like Muslims due to things like Muslim men wearing thawb and hijab/niqab and Islam having a conservative attitude to issues like homosexuality.

I was wondering then if that is the case would the Victorians be considered to be British/English by some posters standards seeing as they were quite puritan and very conservative in their outlook, and obviously their culture was very different from what we see of British/English culture today.

yes.

[Tabers]

Of course they will still be seen as English/British. People change over the years and cultures do. So from that would that mean that stone age man would not be classed as British because of the way they lived? I am sure in 100 years from now people will see British people consisting of people of all religions and cultures. Religions change in countries. The whole Catholic/Protestant/Church of England argument in the Tudor era for example. So now do people look back and think that those that were not Church of England were not British? No they do not. People's views change. And many things from the Victorian Era are seen as much more British stereotypically than some of the things that we do now. Cucumber sandwiches and afternoon tea? Yes we all have them don't we.

[Matthew12]

(Original post by Tabers)
Of course they will still be seen as English/British. People change over the years and cultures do. So from that would that mean that stone age man would not be classed as British because of the way they lived? I am sure in 100 years from now people will see British people consisting of people of all religions and cultures. Religions change in countries. The whole Catholic/Protestant/Church of England argument in the Tudor era for example. So now do people look back and think that those that were not Church of England were not British? No they do not. People's views change. And many things from the Victorian Era are seen as much more British stereotypically than some of the things that we do now. Cucumber sandwiches and afternoon tea? Yes we all have them don't we.

Ok fine but then given that cultures are dynamic their nature ever changing would it be hypocrite then for some posters to claim some people are not British/English or do no act British because what they do culturally is different to theirs seeing as that it could become part and parcel of British/English society?

[tommm]

My definition of "British" is "from Britain", so I believe that the Victorians were indeed British.

[daisydaffodil]

The culture was very English and people in Scotland, imho, lived very differently. By the way they lived, it's very English but then there were very few people of different cultures at the time living in England, those who were of a different culture (e.g. different skin tone, different accent/language) were not given a high place in society and everything came from those at the top who were very much English - taking aside the fact that Queen Victoria's husband was in fact German. That said he was second to her and would have had adopt to English ideals.

I don't think it was until the war and the years after it that cultures really began to emigrate and blend more - you could say that there was immigration from Ireland and from the very near countries in Europe (like France, Germany, Scandinavia) but even then the cultures would not be *that* different, as opposed to for example an African family coming across.

So yes - as a people they were very much English and not really British, as I said Scottish Culture of the 1800s/1900s was really very different, even down to the photographs of people you can see differences.

[ajp100688]

Only the upper classes of Victorian Britain were conservative and puritan. The lower classes were swearing, shagging, drinking and doing drugs just as much as the present day, perhaps even more given the lack of medical knowledge and their intensely deprived and depressing lives. What you're referring to is a stereotype that only reflected a very narrow strata of society.

Besides even those that did reflect that stereotype still adhered to Judaeo-Christian customs and beliefs, the idea of stuff such as free speech, representative government etc.

[Snagprophet]

If they came from England then yes, they were English. Are you some kind of moron, OP?

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

The question of what members of a society from different points in that society's timeline would think of each other if they actually met or were forced to share one time period is a very interesting one, but I think you haven't thought this out properly and are taking the question in a somewhat nonsensical direction. Of course they are English and/or British (although the question of when and where self-identification as 'British' became widespread is itself an interesting one and, current writing suggesting that it first took hold in the colonies of settlement in the early- to mid-Victorian period). This would be the case even without the points noted by ajp100688. One of the reasons you have wandered into such a silly question is that you assume--incorrectly--that the argument against Muslims being considered English is that they are religiously conservative, although, since you are obviously aware that Victorians did not wear thawb and niqab, I am still a bit puzzled how you failed to see the flaws in your reasoning yourself.

[daisydaffodil]

(Original post by Matthew12)
From reading many of the debates/topics surrounding the theme or topic of what is it to be English/British and some posters holding the view that certain members of British society cannot be regarded as English like Muslims due to things like Muslim men wearing thawb and hijab/niqab and Islam having a conservative attitude to issues like homosexuality.

I was wondering then if that is the case would the Victorians be considered to be British/English by some posters standards seeing as they were quite puritan and very conservative in their outlook, and obviously their culture was very different from what we see of British/English culture today.

I would add, to my previous posts that whilst people were conservative Victorian ideas of conservatism were very different to a Muslim idea! Victorians did not have arranged marriages for example and there certainly wasn't the terrorism of today, or a mix of different cultures - which is why we don't see Muslims as English s it's very much an outside culture that did not originate here.. Neither of course did Christianity but that's an entirely different issue. Maybe it's been here longer or maybe it's because the Queen/King is head of the Anglican Church, I don't know!

[ForKicks]

Someone needs to learn the word 'history'.

[Matthew12]

(Original post by daisydaffodil)
I would add, to my previous posts that whilst people were conservative Victorian ideas of conservatism were very different to a Muslim idea! Victorians did not have arranged marriages for example and there certainly wasn't the terrorism of today, or a mix of different cultures - which is why we don't see Muslims as English s it's very much an outside culture that did not originate here.. Neither of course did Christianity but that's an entirely different issue. Maybe it's been here longer or maybe it's because the Queen/King is head of the Anglican Church, I don't know!

Then neither British citizens who professes Christianity can be perceived as English/British for they subscribed to an alien faith that has no roots in this county. It does not matter that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country or that our monarchy is rooted in it. It would still be by you're standards and alien religion. Therefore then only a religion or religions which originated in these shores can be regarded as truly indigenous by going by you're reason had Islam being brought to England and it became the religion of this country then Islam would be not be alien to England.

[Matthew12]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
The question of what members of a society from different points in that society's timeline would think of each other if they actually met or were forced to share one time period is a very interesting one, but I think you haven't thought this out properly and are taking the question in a somewhat nonsensical direction. Of course they are English and/or British (although the question of when and where self-identification as 'British' became widespread is itself an interesting one and, current writing suggesting that it first took hold in the colonies of settlement in the early- to mid-Victorian period). This would be the case even without the points noted by ajp100688. One of the reasons you have wandered into such a silly question is that you assume--incorrectly--that the argument against Muslims being considered English is that they are religiously conservative, although, since you are obviously aware that Victorians did not wear thawb and niqab, I am still a bit puzzled how you failed to see the flaws in your reasoning yourself.

Well of course the Victorians did not wear thawb and niquab but they still dress conservatively and would be pretty much be appalled by how some people in this country dress today.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Matthew12)
[/B]

Then neither British citizens who professes Christianity can be perceived as English/British for they subscribed to an alien faith that has no roots in this county. It does not matter that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country or that our monarchy is rooted in it. It would still be by you're standards and alien religion. Therefore then only a religion or religions which originated in these shores can be regarded as truly indigenous by going by you're reason had Islam being brought to England and it became the religion of this country then Islam would be not be alien to England.

Read Gibbon on the significance of Poitiers.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Matthew12)
Well of course the Victorians did not wear thawb and niquab but they still dress conservatively and would be pretty much be appalled by how some people in this country dress today.

And...the rest of your arguments don't follow from that

[jack_the_king]

what a ridiculous thread.

[Miraclefish]

The Victorians were an era of people. You could have had an English Victorian, or a Brazillian Victorian.

What, exactly, were your trying to get at with your secret Socrates-style post?

This forum sometimes depresses me.

[Observatory]

(Original post by Matthew12)
[/B]

Then neither British citizens who professes Christianity can be perceived as English/British for they subscribed to an alien faith that has no roots in this county. It does not matter that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country or that our monarchy is rooted in it. It would still be by you're standards and alien religion. Therefore then only a religion or religions which originated in these shores can be regarded as truly indigenous by going by you're reason had Islam being brought to England and it became the religion of this country then Islam would be not be alien to England.

Britain became Christian before there was an idea of British national identity or even a single country in what is today England. Obviously if everyone had converted to Islam in the 1st millennium AD then Britain would be an Islamic country, but it didn't. Today, I don't think Christianity is important to British identity, but Victorian puritanism would not be considered alien either.

[The Dark Lord]

(Original post by jack_the_king)
what a ridiculous thread.

what a pointless comment.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Matthew12)
From reading many of the debates/topics surrounding the theme or topic of what is it to be English/British and some posters holding the view that certain members of British society cannot be regarded as English like Muslims due to things like Muslim men wearing thawb and hijab/niqab and Islam having a conservative attitude to issues like homosexuality.

I was wondering then if that is the case would the Victorians be considered to be British/English by some posters standards seeing as they were quite puritan and very conservative in their outlook, and obviously their culture was very different from what we see of British/English culture today.

Since when can muslims not be regarded as English? What a load of ****.

Anyway, it's not the attitude itself, it's the reason for holding the attitude. Cultural background. And it's a cultural background which evolved entirely separately from Britain. That's why the practice of wearing concealing clothing and condemning homosexuality isn't seen as having British roots. That's different from the people being British or otherwise, though.