Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Births to foreign born mothers approaching one in every three Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    You did try, and thanks for that.

    But where is the shared history, the shared consciousness as you put it? That is the bit I don't get?

    What connection do the children of parents who come from outside the UK have to the the British experience of the Second World War, for example? Let alone Morris Dancing??

    My parents, grandparents lived through it. They fought for this country, were bombed by the Luftwaffe, lived under food rationing. So the whole Churchill, Spitfire, DDay stuff has a bit of resonance to me, although not that much if I am honest. It is history.

    What possible relevance has it to a second generation immigrant? There is no shared history, no shared consciousness.

    What am I missing here?
    As for where is the shared history and consciousness it's a metaphysical thing, I can't just point it out and tell you "where" it is. A shared consciousness emerges from any group of people whether it's a group of friends, a family or a whole society or community.

    I think it's all as relevant to me as much as it is to most white english people. The fact that I'm not the same race doesn't make me feel less english. What else would I even call myself?? And as for your parents and grandparents living through ww2 (on one side, so did mine)...that is a meaningful connection but is family the only thing that connects us to the past? what if someone hates their family, does that mean suddenly they have no connection with the recent history of their country? I was born here, I grew up here, I've only ever lived here, it's my home and I don't see why you think having some racial differences is such a big factor in how someone feels culturally. I am not different culturally to your average liberal minded white english person, I just don't have any tanning needs and buy more anti-frizz hair products - really I don't see what else is the difference. I have never particualry felt that my race or the culture of some of my relatives, which I barely even know about, has much to do with who I am.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Robin Hood didn't participate in the Third Crusade in Ivanhoe. I mean I am only three quarters of the way through, but that seems pretty definite, by now. He stayed in Sherwood Forest, well away from Muslims, except when they are slaves of the Normans,

    The Crusaders (apart from Richard, obviously) are Ivanhoe and the Templar in the novel. I don't see either of them getting much traction in popular culture nowadays, frankly, but tell me where you see them being so, and I'll reconsider my contention.
    So you want history to be taught more rigorously in schools, but also believe we should glorify the crusades? I get the feeling it isn't really 'history' you want taught, but a sort of creepy nationalist mythology. The crusading ideal introduced genocide to Europe. Why should that be venerated?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    So you want history to be taught more rigorously in schools, but also believe we should glorify the crusades? I get the feeling it isn't really 'history' you want taught, but a sort of creepy nationalist mythology. The crusading ideal introduced genocide to Europe. Why should that be venerated?
    I don't think Ivanhoe does glorify the Crusades. That the Third Crusade was a failure is frankly admitted, and many of the worst villains of the book are Crusaders apart from Richard and the eponymous hero.

    The description of the Knight's Templars couldn't be worse. They are represented as brutal, hypocritical, murderous sexual predators, looters and crazed religious bigots. Burning Muslims at the stake and trying beautiful Jewesses for witchcraft for the crime of having bewitched one of their number who had whisked her away on horseback with a plan of debauching her in a Templar monastery.

    Brian de Bois Gilbert is treated as having lapsed from his religious obligation for trying to ravish her, he gets a slap on the wrist because having slain three hundred Saracens with his own hands he is useful. She is the one who gets to burn for sorcery. (Except I have a hunch Ivanhoe is about to rescue her, haven't got to that part yet).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    I don't think Ivanhoe does glorify the Crusades. That the Third Crusade was a failure is frankly admitted, and many of the worst villains of the book are Crusaders apart from Richard and the eponymous hero.

    The description of the Knight's Templars couldn't be worse. They are represented as brutal, hypocritical, murderous sexual predators, looters and crazed religious bigots. Burning Muslims at the stake and trying beautiful Jewesses for witchcraft for the crime of having bewitched one of their number who had whisked her away on horseback with a plan of debauching her in a Templar monastery.

    Brian de Bois Gilbert is treated as having lapsed from his religious obligation for trying to ravish her, he gets a slap on the wrist because having slain three hundred Saracens with his own hands he is useful. She is the one who gets to burn for sorcery. (Except I have a hunch Ivanhoe is about to rescue her, haven't got to that part yet).
    Well, I haven't read the book, but your complaint seems to be that there's a lack of crusader heroes in modern popular culture. Am I misreading you? I just don't see how encouraging historical myth-making can be compatible with a desire to encourage good history. Just read up on Margaret Murray to see the sort of nonsense that leads to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Well, I haven't read the book, but your complaint seems to be that there's a lack of crusader heroes in modern popular culture. Am I misreading you? I just don't see how encouraging historical myth-making can be compatible with a desire to encourage good history. Just read up on Margaret Murray to see the sort of nonsense that leads to.
    Yes you are misreading me.

    Ivanhoe is a wonderful story, wriien by a novelist of true greatness, and played a significant part in creating a national myth of Englishness, back in the day. Who doesn't know of Robin Hood? Of wicked Normans, and plucky Anglo Saxons fighting back rather than succumbing to a Conqueror's yoke?

    But you can't read it seriously now. It won't do as national myth, I was jesting there. I am sure in the nineteenth century a Norman baron turning a Jewish moneylender over burning coals, and basting him with oil in the dungeon of his castle, to extort his ill gotten gains of usury caused outrage and horror. I almost laughed, I mean it is so over the top!

    So whilst I do rather regret that he is such a forgotten author nowadays, I also kinda understand why. Plus he has such huge narrative sweep it is very time consuming. The nineteenth century was a more leisured age. What else was there to do in your free time but read? We have other distractions.

    I understand his power, I get him, but think I am part of a very small band who read him with pleasure in 2017.

    And I do think that is a shame, I guess.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Robin Hood didn't participate in the Third Crusade in Ivanhoe.
    My mistaken assumption if not, though he is portrayed as a returning crusader in both the previously mentioned media.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Ivanhoe isn't in the least historically accurate, in fact it is laughably not so. So what? Neither is Richard III. Its history is ridiculous too. Does that prevent the play being one of the greatest ever penned by any playright, anywhere, at any time?

    As for Scott's lack of Englishness I would say only this. Having single handedly created the myth of Scotland, kilts, tartan, Bonny Prince Charlie on every shortbread tin ya de ya, he asked himself where do most of my readers live?

    So he created a national myth for England too. That is what geniuses do.
    OK, but in this case I'm not really seeing how this relates to the thread topic in general. If you want to bemoan the decline in attention given to older literary classics, fair enough, but if you're not giving it as an example as some sort of lost English/British essence, then it seems to be a very tenuous jump in the thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My mother is foreign born but my father is English. I consider myself English and you couldn't tell from looking at me whether I am 100% English or not. Would I be counted in these statistics? Because I'm hardly a poster child for diversity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    People draw pride from the empire because for ~500 years we were the apex predator that shaped the world in our image.
    I don't think that could be further from the truth.

    Betjeman (a decendant of immigrants who added a second "n" to the name to make it appear less Dutch and then dropped it again to make it appear less German) had it right; the Empire brought "democracy and proper drains". Most people see the Empire as an ineluctible force for good in the world.

    You can see it again with Kipling's tutorial to the Americans:

    "Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hopes to nought"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    OK, but in this case I'm not really seeing how this relates to the thread topic in general. If you want to bemoan the decline in attention given to older literary classics, fair enough, but if you're not giving it as an example as some sort of lost English/British essence, then it seems to be a very tenuous jump in the thread.
    It is a very tenous jump, it just occurred to me as I am very into the novel just now, and it is right in the forefront of my mind. And it clearly speaks to a conception of historical Englishness. Read it and you will see what I mean.

    Tell you what, I'll try and take it in a slightly direction. It seems to me that we are currently rewriting our past history to reflect the present, and I think it has had the reverse of what we intended.

    To take the example of Ivanhoe there was a TV adaption of Robin Hood in which Friar Tuck was played by a black actor, as is now the fashion. Friar Tuck is fictional, but let's pretend he isn't. Isn't that just a dishonest representation? Not to put to fine a point on it a lie? An attempt to pretend that the twelfth century was really the twenty first? To reprise Scott, would Scottish people regard a Bonny Prince Charlie played by a black actor as distinctly odd? Or not blink an eyelid at that too?

    The reverse is true, also. The Eastenders soap is set in a fictional East End which is 90% white. Why aren't all the actors Bangladeshi? Isn't that also a lie?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I don't think that could be further from the truth.

    Betjeman (a decendant of immigrants who added a second "n" to the name to make it appear less Dutch and then dropped it again to make it appear less German) had it right; the Empire brought "democracy and proper drains". Most people see the Empire as an ineluctible force for good in the world.

    You can see it again with Kipling's tutorial to the Americans:

    "Fill full the mouth of Famine
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The end for others sought,
    Watch sloth and heathen Folly
    Bring all your hopes to nought"
    Exactly, we shaped the world in our image. That does not mean however that we were no predatory nor that many don't take pride from us being top dog.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Exactly, we shaped the world in our image. That does not mean however that we were no predatory nor that many don't take pride from us being top dog.
    All I can say is that if it is true, and I have my doubts, it is a post-Imperialist fantasy by people who aren't quite sure which side we were on in WWII.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Isn't that just a dishonest representation?
    Is Sarah Bernhardt's or Glenda Jackson's Hamlet dishonest.

    All drama involves a suspension of disbelief. What you are suggesting is that we are not allowed to suspend disbelief over race.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Is Sarah Bernhardt's or Glenda Jackson's Hamlet dishonest.

    All drama involves a suspension of disbelief. What you are suggesting is that we are not allowed to suspend disbelief over race.
    Drama involves suspension of disbelief, true, and in Shakespeare's own time female characters were played by boys. I get that. (Although personally I would prefer to watch a fully fledged woman playing Desdemona or Cleopatra, or Ophelia. Rather than a pre pubescent boy smothered in lipstick. I'm funny like that I guess).

    My argument, though is that something more profound is going on, a conscious rewriting of history. To make the past conform to the present.

    And it is a uniquely western phenomenon. You don't get black actors starring in Noh plays. And the idea that you should would meet with bemusement and incredulity, I suggest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Oh no, how tragic
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    You were rather a big fan of Corbyn: are you seriously telling me you've never voted for Jezza and his ilk, and nor would you ever? :holmes:
    I love him because he so well principled man but I doubt I would ever seriously vote for him for a number of reasons;mostly cos of my background and my upbringing. I'm more conservative than anything.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm pretty sure some time ago you confirmed that your loyalty is to Syria before the UK and that you would seek a foreign partner (thus not strengthening the native genepool).

    Your not a bad person of course, but it suggests that at some level people like you don't see yourselves as one of us. If indeed you even wish to be so fully.
    Not so much allegiance but I feel I have more in common with Swiss Italians and Italians in general plus Syrians because of my background than say a native brit,mostly cos of the cultural aspect. Plus I don't know what you mean by native gene pool given that I'm not a native and most people still view me as a foreigner who just happens to have been born and raised in the U.K. The next guy I hope proposes to me is a native brit actually :mmm:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I love him because he so well principled man
    Perhaps you missed this article, and the fact he tried to capture the youth vote on a classic switch and bait bit of bribery & bluff with this recent student debt clearout electoral scandal? :dontknow:

    I doubt I would ever seriously vote for him for a number of reasons; mostly cos of my background and my upbringing. I'm more conservative than anything
    Well, I suppose that's good to know, albeit that one would hope you are not rigidly conservative i.e. you see the merit in reforming things where doing so looks likely to be genuinely progressive
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Not so much allegiance but I feel I have more in common with Swiss Italians and Italians in general plus Syrians because of my background than say a native brit,mostly cos of the cultural aspect. Plus I don't know what you mean by native gene pool given that I'm not a native and most people still view me as a foreigner who just happens to have been born and raised in the U.K. The next guy I hope proposes to me is a native brit actually :mmm:
    :eek:
    You will be diluting the native gene pool with Syrian Arab blood
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Yeah women are aging children later on in life which isn't really a good thing...

    How do we encourage native women to want to have kids or more kids?
    Firstly men have to be encouraged to marry younger. While most men dont propose tlll they are thirty and mostly marry women the same age then breeding kids gets postponed.

    Many girls would be happy to marry in the mid twenties as used to be normal but boyf is man-child. Most men only marry young if they find someone far better looking than them and are scared they will lose her.

    Bring back the married mans allowance, end child benefit when the mum hits forty so the younger you have them the more you get, help to buy only to married couples. There are many possible incentiives
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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