Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What is a 'British Identity'? Is there one? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Proud to be British and proud to be white
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For me, the 'British identity' is an awareness of what some people take as 'British values' (democracy, stiff upper lip etc.)

    Even if you don't choose to act upon those values


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Britain is a place where, if you are white with ancestry going back for centuries, you belong to a nation of mongrels and are therefore not a true Briton.
    [citation needed]
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Native Briton-)
    Proud to be British and proud to be white
    I'm genuinely curious here: why do you feel the need to say that you're proud to be white? When have you ever been persecuted against only because you're white?

    'White' is not a thing to be reclaimed, like 'gay', for instance.

    It's like me saying that I'm proud to not be transgender. Or my dad going around telling everyone how proud he is to be straight.

    There is simply no need.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Native Briton-)
    Question time has asked this question several times and it infuriates me that the panel where mostly made up of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants like Benjamin Zephania lecturing us on what they think British identity should be defined as
    Zephaniah*

    Why, exactly, are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants should not be allowed to speak on this matter? They have experience in living in British culture, do they not?

    Should everyone have to provide a certificate of "British authenticity" when asked this question?

    This discourse around immigration and "real" Britishness is starting to get eerily reminiscent of the whole Mudblood/pure-blood thing in Harry Potter.

    For me, when I think of "Britishness" I think of fish and chips, builders' tea, Doctor Who, the NHS, 10 Downing Street, the Loch Ness monster, Dublin, Sherlock Holmes, Big Ben...

    ...how white and island-y somebody's ancestry is is not even a factor, when we're talking about "British culture".

    Nobody chooses how and to whom they are born, so it makes no sense to judge people according to their heritage (just as it makes no sense to judge people according to their hair colour, for instance).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Катя)
    I'm genuinely curious here: why do you feel the need to say that you're proud to be white? When have you ever been persecuted against only because you're white?

    'White' is not a thing to be reclaimed, like 'gay', for instance.

    It's like me saying that I'm proud to not be transgender. Or my dad going around telling everyone how proud he is to be straight.

    There is simply no need.
    You are not curious, you simply have a problem with me being proud to be white. I read comments like yours all the time. Do not try and pass off your criticism by saying - i am only curious when you are not. Just say you have a problem with my statement and at least be honest.

    Pride is a feeling and it is neither rational or irrational. So your statement is baseless.

    I am proud of being white and the attributes that are part of being white. Culture is strongly correlated with race and ethnicity and i am proud of that. i am proud of the aesthetic of being white. i am proud of my ethnic group which is a white subset. I am proud of my white identity and ethnic identity, my homeland and common ancestry and so on.

    If you have a problem with that the problem is entirely yours. I find it astounding that people think they have the right to criticise me and tell me that what i am feeling is wrong
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Катя)

    It's like me saying that I'm proud to not be transgender. Or my dad going around telling everyone how proud he is to be straight.

    There is simply no need.
    OH I AM SORRY .... I did not know that for me to feel pride in something, i have to run it past you. Because it is you who DICTATES what and when people should feel pride

    Clearly the pride that I feel is WRONG and you are RIGHT

    Not only do you dictate when and what people should be proud. You also dictate what is the correct ethnic group that deserves to feel pride - after all i am not allowed to feel pride in my ethnic group because I was never enslaved or persecuted
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    No this Conservative and Libertarian rubbish needs to be put to bed. The Anlgosphere has nothing to do with culture. I has everything to do with geography and the government system, same a Britain. It is the governmental system which stops totalitarianism not culture.
    Do you think government systems are plucked out of thin air?

    Just lol at the Anglosphere having nothing to do with culture. The culture of the English speaking countries are clearly far closer to each other than they are to anyone else, and the government and legal systems of those countries share a common origin. Common law, trail by jury, the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, et cetera. Outside the Anglosphere these are not widely held principles.

    Frankly, you're talking out of your proverbial.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Do you think government systems are plucked out of thin air?

    Just lol at the Anglosphere having nothing to do with culture. The culture of the English speaking countries are clearly far closer to each other than they are to anyone else, and the government and legal systems of those countries share a common origin. Common law, trail by jury, et cetera. Outside the Anglosphere these are not widely held principles.

    Frankly, you're talking out of your proverbial.

    Correct
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Soundness, decency, fair dealing, a stiff upper lip, understatement, an excellent sense of humour, good manners, a 'can do' attitude and the amateur spirit - it's not the winning that counts, it's how you play the game - all these terms are good starting points although national identity, and that of the British in particular, is a vague and difficult concept to define.

    All this crap about tolerance/liberal democracy/freedom etc... is a combination of pompous Yankee claptrap and hysterical Continental nonsense. There's no need to dress it up in fancy language or start weeping over the Magna Carta.

    It all boils down to is this - a Briton treats everyone the same. He's a gentleman to every man he meets. Black, brown or white, Muslim, Christian or Sikh - he'll look you in the eye, shake you firmly by the hand and do as he would by done by.

    I don't buy the idea that we are a "mongrel nation". It's a ludicrous concept. Of course every country is made up of the human detritus left by the ebb and flow of humanity over the ages - that much is obvious to any halfwit. What that truism does not do is frame any kind of idea of identity.

    America is the immigrant nation - it has a well-developed mythology around Ellis Island/the Statue of Liberty/going West and striking gold/living the American dream/etc... that, despite desperate attempts to talk of multiculturalism, has not been and is not Britain.

    This is not to say that we are not welcoming to immigrants - as I said a Briton treats every man the same. But they should not be accommodated to the extent that they need make no effort whatsoever to integrate. They should be made aware of the history of our nation, of the inheritance they receive with their passport and that much shall be expected of them. The rest is down to us, their fellow Britons, to set the tone and show them how to behave, how to carry themselves until they start believing that - "to have been born British is to have won first prize in the lottery of life."

    The difficulty and the genius of it is that we have never had a defining nationalistic moment. The French and the Americans had their revolutions and the Germans had their unification but we remained constant because we knew who we were already. It is difficult because it is an unwritten, subtle thing, and it is a thing of genius because that makes it flexible, accommodating and practical.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Native Briton-)
    You are not curious, you simply have a problem with me being proud to be white. I read comments like yours all the time. Do not try and pass off your criticism by saying - i am only curious when you are not. Just say you have a problem with my statement and at least be honest.

    Pride is a feeling and it is neither rational or irrational. So your statement is baseless.

    I am proud of being white and the attributes that are part of being white. Culture is strongly correlated with race and ethnicity and i am proud of that. i am proud of the aesthetic of being white. i am proud of my ethnic group which is a white subset. I am proud of my white identity and ethnic identity, my homeland and common ancestry and so on.
    Never have I ever seen someone use the phrase "white pride" who wasn't also a BNP/EDL sympathiser with a weird thing against Muslims.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    I find it astounding that people think they have the right to criticise me
    Well, that just shows the level of your arrogance, does it not?

    No one is beyond criticism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Катя)
    Never have I ever seen someone use the phrase "white pride" who wasn't also a BNP/EDL sympathiser with a weird thing against Muslims.

    .
    i am not a BNP or EDL sympathiser so you have now !!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Do you think government systems are plucked out of thin air?

    Just lol at the Anglosphere having nothing to do with culture. The culture of the English speaking countries are clearly far closer to each other than they are to anyone else, and the government and legal systems of those countries share a common origin. Common law, trail by jury, the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, et cetera. Outside the Anglosphere these are not widely held principles.

    Frankly, you're talking out of your proverbial.
    Basically yes.

    They were all part of the British Empire so had common law already in place. It was the easy thing to do just keeping Common law. Almost every country within the British Empire kept it. Many also kept English as the national language and it is taught in school. Many of are Protestant countries in Africa and Caribbean. This doesn't lead to them be closer or better. The reason Canada, Australia, New Zealand and US are good is geography and demographic, nothing to do with culture. In fact the countries culturally closest to Britain within their governmental system are Norway and Denmark.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Basically yes.

    They were all part of the British Empire so had common law already in place. It was the easy thing to do just keeping Common law. Almost every country within the British Empire kept it. Many also kept English as the national language and it is taught in school. Many of are Protestant countries in Africa and Caribbean. This doesn't lead to them be closer or better. The reason Canada, Australia, New Zealand and US are good is geography and demographic, nothing to do with culture. In fact the countries culturally closest to Britain within their governmental system are Norway and Denmark.
    Well... it does though doesn't it. Are you seriously telling me that countries with which we share a common linguistic, religious, political, institutional and legal heritage – not to mention the fact that they were founded by British people, have been our most steadfast allies and some of whom still put the Union Jack on their flag – are not closer to us culturally than those countries which do not?

    What are you talking about?

    As for better, it is well accepted that the reason those countries have been so successful economically is high levels of economic and personal freedom, a fair and consistent legal system, and political institutions which were free of tyranny and corruption. Other countries caught up in the 20th century largely by copying our example. This was obviously tied to the common culture: the legacy of Adam Smith, John Locke, the Magna Carta, the reformation, the civil war, the glorious revolution. Democracy and freedom were hard fought over centuries and it was amongst the English-speakers that they first emerged in the modern era.

    I mean, what geographic or demographic advantage do we hold over France, or Spain? It's pretty coincidental that the all the countries which were founded on British culture just happened to end up being amongst the worlds freest, most democratic and richest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Well... it does though doesn't it. Are you seriously telling me that countries with which we share a common linguistic, religious, political, institutional and legal heritage – not to mention the fact that they were founded by British people, have been our most steadfast allies and some of whom still put the Union Jack on their flag – are not closer to us culturally than those countries which do not?

    What are you talking about?

    As for better, it is well accepted that the reason those countries have been so successful economically is high levels of economic and personal freedom, a fair and consistent legal system, and political institutions which were free of tyranny and corruption. Other countries caught up in the 20th century largely by copying our example. This was obviously tied to the common culture: the legacy of Adam Smith, John Locke, the Magna Carta, the reformation, the civil war, the glorious revolution. Democracy and freedom were hard fought over centuries and it was amongst the English-speakers that they first emerged in the modern era.

    I mean, what geographic or demographic advantage do we hold over France, or Spain? It's pretty coincidental that the all the countries which were founded on British culture just happened to end up being amongst the worlds freest, most democratic and richest.
    Yes because they are far away from Britain. Norway, Ireland and Denmark are more like Britain then Canada, US, Australia or New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand don't matter as much as Germany or France to Britain.

    Yes because they were part of the British Empire, it isn't because they were British people who moved somewhere else and made their own country or people to adopted the English language, Common law or Protestantism. It was through Protestantism with the British governmental system these things emerged, not English speaking or anglo people. Magna Carta wasn't enforced until the English Bill of Rights which created the British state. This doesn't mean every country which is Protestant and has the same language will have the same governmental system and be successful. It happens in specific geographical and demographic cases. Where the population is an immigrant population and geographically broken off from the rest of the world. So the same Protestantism, English language and so on fails in Africa, Caribbean and Asia.

    In the case of Spain we have more natural ports, rivers and are closer to the sea. Our weather is better for the growing of crops, we have more raw materials needed for economic development. In terms for France we have more ports and are closer to the sea, we don't border other countries.

    Some countries who were part of the British Empire are successful other countries aren't. Culture is part of the reason why some are, but also geography and demographics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Yes because they are far away from Britain. Norway, Ireland and Denmark are more like Britain then Canada, US, Australia or New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand don't matter as much as Germany or France to Britain.

    Yes because they were part of the British Empire, it isn't because they were British people who moved somewhere else and made their own country or people to adopted the English language, Common law or Protestantism. It was through Protestantism with the British governmental system these things emerged, not English speaking or anglo people. Magna Carta wasn't enforced until the English Bill of Rights which created the British state. This doesn't mean every country which is Protestant and has the same language will have the same governmental system and be successful. It happens in specific geographical and demographic cases. Where the population is an immigrant population and geographically broken off from the rest of the world. So the same Protestantism, English language and so on fails in Africa, Caribbean and Asia.

    In the case of Spain we have more natural ports, rivers and are closer to the sea. Our weather is better for the growing of crops, we have more raw materials needed for economic development. In terms for France we have more ports and are closer to the sea, we don't border other countries.

    Some countries who were part of the British Empire are successful other countries aren't. Culture is part of the reason why some are, but also geography and demographics.
    It pretty much is. They were founded by people who saw British liberties and institutions as their birthright. Even when America famously rejected the British Empire, it did so quoting British philosophers, and standing up for their rights as Englishmen (as most saw themselves right up until independence, and the forging of a new identity). These were not rights enjoyed by any other people in the world.

    The British empire covered a very great extent. The English speaking lands were far more successful than myriad countries which had the British system imposed upon them, because the culture, including the integration with and acceptance of system are probably more important.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    It pretty much is. They were founded by people who saw British liberties and institutions as their birthright. Even when America famously rejected the British Empire, it did so quoting British philosophers, and standing up for their rights as Englishmen (as most saw themselves right up until independence, and the forging of a new identity). These were not rights enjoyed by any other people in the world.

    The British empire covered a very great extent. The English speaking lands were far more successful than myriad countries which had the British system imposed upon them, because the culture, including the integration with and acceptance of system are probably more important.
    The North American Proxy which is better know as the US war of Independence was not about reclaiming British freedom or the English Bill of Rights. Those things were co-opted by the Puritans who were supported by the French and Spanish against the Loyalists in North America. The first thing they did was remove the British Monarchy, Anglican Church. Their governmental system after that came from the Union of the States, some of which were Loyalist. What I am saying here is the US Revolution is a lie and opposed to the very governmental system which brought the 13 Colonies freedom. Nothing to do with culture or birthrights, but a geopolitical conflict between France, Spain and Britain. The success of the US comes from the compromise which was reached between the States in forming the US governmental system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    but the huguenots
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    That is because Britain is geographically different from Germany, it has a different history and culture, also the British governmental system had been the same for over 200 years.
    Aren't you simply agreeing with me here?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Катя)
    I'm genuinely curious here: why do you feel the need to say that you're proud to be white? When have you ever been persecuted against only because you're white?

    'White' is not a thing to be reclaimed, like 'gay', for instance.

    It's like me saying that I'm proud to not be transgender. Or my dad going around telling everyone how proud he is to be straight.

    There is simply no need.
    It's things like this that make people feel the need to say they're proud to be white.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.