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

The sentimentality and infantilisation of Britain watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What's the problem? We'll be adults saying exactly the same thing in a few years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    ireland is crap, it has no importance historically. Britain is one of history's biggest players. so you have to understand it from our perspective: we have amazing heritage and history.

    The stiff upper lip was about remaining unemotional even when times were hard. don't give me this bull about us thinking we're superior.

    The conservatives were interesting. stop mooooaning about some guy who starved himself to death so he couldn't wear prison uniform.

    And they WERE the good old days
    Ireland is crap? I guess you know this from experience?

    If you're talking about the Republic of Ireland, then I think you're mistaken about how 'crap' it is. The Republic has accomplished an enormous amount over the past 20 years, emerging as a strong player in world economics and, at one point, was voted the best place to live in the world according to quality of life. I don't know about you, but I think Ireland has accomplished a lot more than Britain over the same period of time; plus Ireland did this after just after it was officially recognised as the poorest country in Western Europe.

    What has Britain done over the same period of time? Hardly anything.

    You talk about Britain like it's still the superpower it was almost 100 years ago. Sorry, mate, but those times are gone; you are no longer the huge force in world politics you once were, you're just another country. Get over it.

    Also, what did you consider 'interesting' about the conervatives? I considered their unemotional approach to politics to be quite disconcerting; how can you follow a leader who has no empathy whatsoever? The Conservatives were hated by the Irish community because their unemotional approach and unquestionable authority. Thatcher just intensified the troubles by completely dismissing the Catholic community, especially during the hunger strikes. Hundreds of people joined the IRA after the whole hunger strike debacle, primarily because of Thatcher's behaviour, and unwillingness to make a compromise. The woman had no sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lust of a Gardener)
    Ireland is crap? I guess you know this from experience?

    If you're talking about the Republic of Ireland, then I think you're mistaken about how 'crap' it is. The Republic has accomplished an enormous amount over the past 20 years, emerging as a strong player in world economics and, at one point, was voted the best place to live in the world according to quality of life. I don't know about you, but I think Ireland has accomplished a lot more than Britain over the same period of time; plus Ireland did this after just after it was officially recognised as the poorest country in Western Europe.

    What has Britain done over the same period of time? Hardly anything.

    You talk about Britain like it's still the superpower it was almost 100 years ago. Sorry, mate, but those times are gone; you are no longer the huge force in world politics you once were, you're just another country. Get over it.

    Also, what did you consider 'interesting' about the conervatives? I considered their unemotional approach to politics to be quite disconcerting; how can you follow a leader who has no empathy whatsoever? The Conservatives were hated by the Irish community because their unemotional approach and unquestionable authority. Thatcher just intensified the troubles by completely dismissing the Catholic community, especially during the hunger strikes. Hundreds of people joined the IRA after the whole hunger strike debacle, primarily because of Thatcher's behaviour, and unwillingness to make a compromise. The woman had no sense.
    It was thirty years ago. Get. over it.

    What has Britain accomplished in the last thirty years?? Are you for real? In terms of what, the arts? Music? Sport? A LOT.

    A lot of people had grievances with Thatcher, don't think your anything special just because "your" people died.

    Thatcher was an interesting stage in british history, she divided people down the middle. The Irish have had about one leader worthy of historic mention.. You guys have a crap country soon to be overrun with immigrants because your population is so wee.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    The Duchess condemns the present “sloppy sentimental” culture in modern Britain and observes that money, illness and sex were not talked about in the old days, whereas now they are the only things people talk about.
    I daresay by avoiding talking about such problems that they were exascerbated, because there would be no yardstick and people would not have any idea what they aught to believe. It's just folly to believe that people can work out things like sex for themselves - that's exactly what leads to pregnancy problems. It would be interesting to know what the OP means by "illness," exactly.

    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    The modish cult of self-expression and self-indulgence in British schools, combined with a nanny-state culture of health and safety, is filleting all character out of the next generation.
    Um... isn't that a contradiction in terms, that is, doesen't the nanny-state deny self-expression?

    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Discipline is non-existent: louts who self-evidently need a good birching are given counselling instead. Youngsters’ “experiences” and “feelings” are awarded spurious significance when what is required is enforced hard work in fields of genuine academic importance, coupled with rigid discipline.
    Could I clarify as to whether the OP is being hyperbolic, or actually advocating corporal punishment?

    This attitude towards discipline is inadvisable for three reasons - it is immoral, it is unsustainable and it is ineffective. It is immoral because it promotes the notion that might makes right - in short, that by being stronger, taller and having more money that parents can order around young people. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to amorality. It is unsustainable because no sooner than the parent's back is turned does difficulty start, because the child no longer believes that they have anything to fear and can do as they please, and as children get older this becomes more of an issue. It is ineffective because carrot-stick fails to get to the root of the cause of the bad behaviour, or rather it assumes the parent knows it. This is rather arrogant, I suppose.

    This is exactly why talking to children is imperative in bringing up children - not necessarily to give them as they want but to get a feel for how they tick inside. I'm not an expert in this so I would point the OP towards How to listen so Kids will talk... by Adèle Faber and Elaine Mazlish. (1853407054)

    As for "hard work in fields of genuine academic importance," I laughed but I didn't smile. (David Almond) Certainly in sciences, you either get it or you don't. It's like a lightbulb coming on when you do - and suddenly everything falls into place.

    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    A startling consequence of the cult of “yoof” has been the infantilisation of undergraduates. Fifty years ago, undergraduates were adults, with a wide range of grown-up interests. Their dress, manners and topics of conversation were largely identical to those of men 10 or 40 years their seniors. Today, outside the very narrow field of their academic subject (and even that may nowadays be trivial or charlatan), their conduct, clothes and interests are indistinguishable from those of teenagers working in supermarkets.
    When I went to Oxford for my interview, the subjects being discussed in the common room included -
    • What <i>exactly</i> happens when you bump your head, with input from a psychologist
    • The merits and demerits of HGTTG
    • Getting from A to B in Surrey, which lead into a longwinded Circle Line
    • Dark Teenage Poetry, and whether or not OUSU ought to publish it
    • Greenbelt, Fairtrade Cola and why one movement cannot tarnish the reputation of them all
    • Whether or not you should shop in Mom-and-Pop outfits just to support them even if they're inconvenient or poor quality

    Whilst this is rather biased because it was the sciences week, and not all of these are academic, I don't suppose a lot of them would interest your average young person on the street.

    I think the OP is confusing here, the avant-garde middle-class artisan with vaguely leftish views and a working-class teenager living in a council flat, which isn't fair at all. Both are distinguishable, and wear very distinctive, and decidedly youthful clothing that they wouldn't be caught dead in aged 30-plus.

    Even if they did have similar interests, what discredit would that be? All it would tell you would be that there is finally class-mobility and a level playing field amongst university-applicants.

    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    An infatuated notion of “equality”, “non-discrimination” and other politically correct humbug have displaced rational or original thought.
    How exactly? I'd especially be interested to know how it displaces orignal thought, given that social levelling should theoretically expose you to a wider range of viewpoints.

    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    Perhaps a recession will engender a degree of stoicism, as people confront real problems instead of agonising over those of celebrities personally unknown to them.
    Pot-Kettle-Black? Stoicism is what most of us have grown up with. Pretty much everyone I know from a less fortunate background who has done well academically has relied on Stoicism to endure life, if not get on. I doubt a nobleperson would have much experience of having to make do, being so comfortable.

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Such a shame how much this country has changed and this underclass of people has formed.
    To talk in such a tone, do you have any view of the dignity of others? A person is a person, no matter how small. (Dr Seuss) Just because someone is ill-educated it doesn't give you the right to look down upon them, to spit on them so and call names. If you had any shred of compassion you would care for such people and want to do something positive to fix the problem rather than whine about it.

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    It formed itself - <b>through substandard education</b>, the welfare state and to an extent, although not to a tin-foil hat wearing extent, the media.
    (Emphasis added)

    A problem exascerbated by private education, no doubt. It separates those who can do well and those who have no choice but to do badly. Similarly, the Conservative Party's CTCs (effectively continued by "New Labour," that is, Labour to appeal to the Right, as Academies) contributed to the multi-tier system, as did faith-schools.

    (Original post by thepoodle)
    The welfare state gave basic dignity to every briton, if you want to find the culprit for today's crappy music/Tv/books just look at the entrepreneurs ready to make a quick buck selling boybands.
    Well said. I would hasten to add that "Means-Testing" eats away at said diginity.

    (Original post by DannyBoy123)
    Sorry that was a bit of a disjointed rant but people like that really get on my tits.
    Which rather missed the point, and is only contributing to the very problem listed to the OP. One would be forgiven for thinking you were making a straw-man argument.

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    So what. I also doubt how my mummy and daddy are going to pay for a suit as one lives on the other side of the world and the other at Sainsbury's. The one suit I do have a saved damn hard for you assumptive little turd.
    Er... that's a moot point, it doesn't make it right. In fact, I think that might be tuquoque?

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Well that's your view. However because of the way people now dress at uni it has taken away to sense of proffesionalism that was once within the uni system.
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    It is a prof working environment. People pay to come to our unis because of the prestidge attached to many of them. They don't come because people smell.
    False dichotomy there, it's a long way between smelling and not wearing a suit. Whatever uni you go to, you pay the same amount. And universities care far more about academic merit than what you wear. Professionalism comes over more in orderliness, upright behaviour and courtesy than wearing a suit, which rather smacks of self-righteousness and even ostentation. Oxford interviews again nailed this home, I should imagine the tutors formed opinions in a similar way to the other students.

    (Original post by meebodied)
    But we have lost a lot of traditions though. Remember those games girls used to play?? Like every primary school knew all these clapping games and ball games... They were like passed down through the generations. IIIIIIIIIIII went to the chinese chipshop to buy a loaf of bread bread bread. I think ours was the last generation to hear those games children used to play
    These still exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the article.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by test_account_2010)
    To talk in such a tone, do you have any view of the dignity of others? A person is a person, no matter how small. (Dr Seuss) Just because someone is ill-educated it doesn't give you the right to look down upon them, to spit on them so and call names. If you had any shred of compassion you would care for such people and want to do something positive to fix the problem rather than whine about it.
    To be perfectly honest, I don't give a flying **** about whether or not these people deserve to be regarded as highly as you want them to be. Yes, a person is a person, however the way they act and the way they regard other people and their money also goes some way in my reasoning for calling them names.

    (Original post by test_account_2010)
    A problem exascerbated by private education, no doubt. It separates those who can do well and those who have no choice but to do badly. Similarly, the Conservative Party's CTCs (effectively continued by "New Labour," that is, Labour to appeal to the Right, as Academies) contributed to the multi-tier system, as did faith-schools.
    Private education solves the problem. It takes people out of failing government schools being force fed a curriculum of biased nonsense, and puts them in an atmosphere where they are told to work towards their potential, rather than be nicey nicey to others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    To be perfectly honest, I don't give a flying **** about whether or not these people deserve to be regarded as highly as you want them to be. Yes, a person is a person, however the way they act and the way they regard other people and their money also goes some way in my reasoning for calling them names.



    Private education solves the problem. It takes people out of failing government schools being force fed a curriculum of biased nonsense, and puts them in an atmosphere where they are told to work towards their potential, rather than be nicey nicey to others.
    Why is there a division between you and the "underclass" you talk about? Private Education takes out those who can afford to be, and only those. People fail because they are in failing schools and have no choice about it, that is they cannot afford to go to any other school.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The article is all over the place, from what I could make of it I'd have to disagree. Yes, fifty years ago students were more dignified, largely because it was only those of the educated classes who went to university, also that they normally went at a slightly older age, also that there were less topics to study and there was no student culture like today. As for the other things like the culture of repression, no one is forced to live a crappy life watching reality tv shows, they do it because they want to, at least they have a choice. The working class haven't changed in fifty years, they were never so well spoken as we'd all like to believe, we romanticise that everyone spoke Oxford English in 'the olden-days', but its not so. What has changed is the introduction of the advertising industry, coinciding with the rise of the entertainment industry, and both are aimed at the wider population and use the lowest common denominator to attract the widest audience, as such they treat us all like we're idiots, now you have a choice to watch this crap or not to, I choose not to.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by test_account_2010)
    Why is there a division between you and the "underclass" you talk about? Private Education takes out those who can afford to be, and only those. People fail because they are in failing schools and have no choice about it, that is they cannot afford to go to any other school.
    All you need to do is abolish state schools, so private schools compete with each other, thereby lowering their prices to allow anyone to enroll. Putting it as cheap as possible will attract poorer children and richer children, allowing them to mix and destroy these old stereotypes both hold about each other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meebodied)
    It was thirty years ago. Get. over it.

    What has Britain accomplished in the last thirty years?? Are you for real? In terms of what, the arts? Music? Sport? A LOT.

    A lot of people had grievances with Thatcher, don't think your anything special just because "your" people died.

    Thatcher was an interesting stage in british history, she divided people down the middle. The Irish have had about one leader worthy of historic mention.. You guys have a crap country soon to be overrun with immigrants because your population is so wee.
    Okay, first of all, I never said that I was personally angry at Thatcher for her behaviour during the hunger strike, I only mentioned it to give an example of her un-emotional approach to a very complicated situation. Ultimately, her approach was entirely flawed; she ended up creating martyrs out of the eight men who died, further drumming up support for the IRA, and intensifing the violence both here and in England itself.

    Also, I don't think it's easy for most Irish people to simply 'get over' the troubles, especially since 4000 people from both sides of the divide were killed, and almost 50,000 injured. A lot of people lost parents, brothers and sisters - and to ask them to simply "get over it" shows how ignorant you truly are. A lot of my friends had fathers, uncles and brothers killed by loyalists and the British army, and I don't blame them for feeling bitter about the period. Regardless of this, I do not advocate any of the violence either side committed, so don't say that I'm mad because of what she did to 'my' people. Thatcher did nothing but antagonise both sides.

    Also, regarding what you said about England's accomplishments, why don't you actually provide some examples instead of just expecting me to believe that they made a huge impact on the world in the past twenty years. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

    Also, the Irish have had a large impact on the world, despite it's small population. There are many famous Irish scientists and writers: Oscar Wilde, Jonathan Swift, James Joyce, Robert Boyle (considered the father of Chemistry), Samuel Beckett, as well as a host of famous figures who claim Irish ancestery. I never assumed that England had no important historic figures - because it certainly does - but you can't simply assume that Ireland has had no impact on the world.

    Regarding your comment on immigration to Ireland, I couldn't care less. Get over it...
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    All you need to do is abolish state schools, so private schools compete with each other, thereby lowering their prices to allow anyone to enroll. Putting it as cheap as possible will attract poorer children and richer children, allowing them to mix and destroy these old stereotypes both hold about each other.
    Huh? The good schools will charge more because they are providing a better service. Those schools with a worse service will have to charge less. The only schools that poor children will be able to attend are those that have to charge less because of their lower quality...

    If I have a good school and can fill the 100 places by charging £10k p/a, why on earth would I charge £3k p/a instead? Conversely, if the only way I can fill the 100 places is by charging £500 p/a, that's not saying much about the value of the service I'm providing, eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree with the Duchess.
    Our society today is breeding spoilt,sensitive youth without much of a back bone. There approach to life is rather shortsighted, and they are feeble, unable to bare much of life's difficulties without turning to Alcohol Drugs and self sympathy. Its a shame really. I'm only 15 and I completely agree.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Tryign to cling to outmoded Britian IMO. Yes I'm not massively enamoured with the 2000's, but things evolve, that's life. Imperial Britian is gone, accept it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 27, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.