We have talken endlessly of how we see one or other European countries (or regions, part of countries) relates to each other in our mental maps.
talking most of the time the superficial impression such as climate, or more complex things such as architectural ambiances (which mix up culture with pure geographic characteristics), and pure cultural, religious of linguistic point of views.
This is about the way I would, generalizing represent the different regions of Western Europe, taking in account my impressions, the general ambiance, and the cultural grouping toghether.
I explain it:
-North Western Europe. As its name say it it is geographically the north parts of W Europe. The ones that surround the north sea and the Baltic.
they also share a more or less north European oceanic climate dut to its position, and also colder condition Scandinavia (the reason why I make a sub-group of it)
- linguistically germanic, and mostly protestant (excepted ireland and some other regions)
- the general ambiance is more subjective thing, but could be divided in three major groups: the nordic scandinavian ambiance, the British/Dutch ambiances. Northern Germany could be perceved as intermediary between both.
- Central Europe. Actually it is more "german-speaking regions of central Europe", sicne central Europe extend also on Slavic nations more at the east.
Sharing a same language (or groups of dialects), similar semi-continental climatic conditions, with colder winters and hotter summers.
Sharing relief condition, with more hilly landsceapes, or mountains in its southern part.
And above all sharing historical influences, such as Austria-Hungary empire, and also influences of Italy. landlock contienatal regions , but situation also at the gate of east and south-east Europe
religiously traditionally catholic.
- Middle-western Europe. In fact mostly the northern half of France and maybe also including Neighbouring french speaking parts of Belgium and Switezerland. The name is not spread and used but I think it actually reflects quite clearly its geographical position - between the north and south of western Europe, at the same latitudes than "central Europe";
But it does not share the same cultural influences, linguistical (not german-speaking), climatical (mostly not continental), geographical (not being landlocked, neither between east and west), so canno't being included in it. but having middle position, Being romance speaking, and catholic, it could be hardly be associated with north Europe, but neither fully with south western Europe because of climate, localisation and general ambiance.
- South-western Europe. the countries and regions that lies geographically clearly in the southern parts of Europe. Sharing linguistic similarities, catholic traditions, ambiance and in a lesser extend (due to the presence of alot of mountains and also the Atlantic) climatical.
Porthos
That's how I divide Western Europe in my mental map as well.
Pauline
I live in the yellow zone
Benjamin [inactive]
I'm not sure that I'd think of it quite like that, because the Scottish Highlands are not very similar to Lower Saxony, and because I didn't find places like Auvergne and Galicia to be very typically 'Southern European' when I was there. I'd probably divide it into more regions than just that.
Anyway, what about Eastern Europe? Everyone seems to be going to Prague, Budapest and Bratislava these days.
fab
Quote:
because I didn't find places like Auvergne and Galicia to be very typically 'Southern European' when I was there
How could you say that Tuscany is more south European than Galicia, or Venezia more south European than Auvergne ? Just because the grass is green ?
Benjamin [inactive]
fab wrote:
Quote:
because I didn't find places like Auvergne and Galicia to be very typically 'Southern European' when I was there
How could you say that Tuscany is more south European than Galicia, or Venezia more south European than Auvergne ? Just because the grass is green ?
The colour of the grass can be an influential factor, yes. For example, there is clearly a Central European grass colour which I noticed in Southern Germany and Austria. It is different shade from the colour in England, Northern Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, or Northern France.
greg in noord-frankrijk
Cette carte est très intéressante, fab. Je situerais la zone correspondant à la Grande-Grèce antique (sud de la péninsule italienne + Sicile) hors du Méridion occidental pour la classer dans le Méridion oriental ; à moins qu'il ne s'agisse du Méridion central.
Je suis d'accord avec les contours du Septentrion occidental, à ceci près : pourquoi en exclure la Wallonie et y inclure le Nord—Pas-de-Calais ? Où se situerait l'archipel normand ?
Quant au Milieu occidental, son flanc est semble épouser l'ancienne ligne de fracture romano-germanique. Cela revient à dire que sa frontière orientale est linguistique. Idem pour les confins orientaux du Septentrion occidental et du Méridion occidental puisque les démarcations germano-slave et romano-slave les limitent.
fab
Quote:
The colour of the grass can be an influential factor, yes
Do you realise that the grass color change drastically with seasons? actually, the "freshy"/"greeny" ambiance of Auvergne is due mainly to isolation of the plateaus and the relief -which make it cooler and wetter than surrounding lower regions.
Actually my maps is not that much associated with landscape ambiances, which varies a lot, especially in the southern part of Europe, due to the high number of mountains and plateaus.
Quote:
The colour of the grass can be an influential factor, yes. For example, there is clearly a Central European grass colour which I noticed in Southern Germany and Austria.
Actually, the landscapes and grass color is of course very different from the bavarian plain and the alpine austrian regions. but both share can be identified as central European - even with drastically different natural ambiances.
Benjamin [inactive]
fab wrote:
Quote:
The colour of the grass can be an influential factor, yes
Do you realise that the grass color change drastically with seasons? actually, the "freshy"/"greeny" ambiance of Auvergne is due mainly to isolation of the plateaus and the relief -which make it cooler and wetter than surrounding lower regions.
I wasn't being entirely serious.
It's just that I don't think of Auvergne as being part of 'Southern Europe'. I don't really know why, but I don't.
Icke
Lol, this could be a new funny game - look at the grass and guess where those meadows are located!
Okay, seriously!
It is strange that various countries or cultures group the Western European countries together differently. In Germany for example, Britain is not considered as Northern European, but just as Western European, although parts of Scotland stretches into the northern part.
Porthos
A lot of those pictures could easily be in North America, lol.
fab
Quote:
It is strange that various countries or cultures group the Western European countries together differently.
Yes, this question has interested me since some times - especially when discussing with people on this board - It is amazing how different our conceptions can be different.
For exemple I was suprised to learn that a lot of people would consider Germany as an Alpine country, since for me the Alps are more a southern European range, while Germany is to me a northern European country...
This is really interesting to compare the ideas we have in our minds, and try to understand why we do have these and not the inverse.
Quote:
Cette carte est très intéressante, fab. Je situerais la zone correspondant à la Grande-Grèce antique (sud de la péninsule italienne + Sicile) hors du Méridion occidental pour la classer dans le Méridion oriental ; à moins qu'il ne s'agisse du Méridion central.
Oui, je suis assez d'accord. J'ai toujours pensé que la différence entre l'Italie du Nord et du sud était autant une différence est-ouest que nord-sud. Il est clair que cette partie de la botte Italienne est géographiquement et historiquement située entre le monde méditerranean occidental et le monde méditerrannéen oriental. Cependant l'unité Italienne politique fut aussi linguistique, et j'associe donc cette partie de l'Italie à l'Europe du sud-ouest pour ces raison politiques et linguistiques. Par ailleurs, pour moi l'Europe du sud-est a une dimension majoritairement orthodoxe (et musulmane bien sur) au lieu d'une dimension catholique (je ne suis pas sur d'associer la Croatie ou la Slovenie à cette zone pour cette raison).
Quote:
Je suis d'accord avec les contours du Septentrion occidental, à ceci près : pourquoi en exclure la Wallonie et y inclure le Nord—Pas-de-Calais ? Où se situerait l'archipel normand ?
Pour des raisons géographiques (latitudes), mais surtout concernant l'ambiance générale. Quand on rentre dans la région nord pas de Calais on entre dans une region à l'ambiance définitivement nord-Européenne, très différente de celle du reste du nord de la France. l'architecture, la culture de la bière, la cuisine d'inspiration flamande, tout celà est pour moi très nord-Européen. L'ancienne influence culturelle et linguistique flamande n'y est pas pour rien. A lille, on se sent plus proche de Londres, Bruxelles ou Amsterdam que de Paris. Concernant la Wallonie, je me trompe peu être étént donné que je ne connais pas cette région, mais je tend à l'imaginer plus proche de la champagne-ardenne que de la flandre (même française). Mais je pourrais aussi l'inclure. En fait je considere l'ensemble nord-pas-de-calais/Wallonie comme une zone intermédiaire entre l'Europe occidentale médiane et l'Europe du Nord - celàa se ressent dans la culture, l'ambiance et la(les) langue(s).
Quote:
Quant au Milieu occidental, son flanc est semble épouser l'ancienne ligne de fracture romano-germanique. Cela revient à dire que sa frontière orientale est linguistique. Idem pour les confins orientaux du Septentrion occidental et du Méridion occidental puisque les démarcations germano-slave et romano-slave les limitent.
oui, je considère le monde sud-germanique comme ayant été le principal vecteur d'une certaine identité dont le vecteur fut principalement la langue, dans la région qu'ici on qualifie de "Europe centrale".
Il suffit de faire un petit voyage vers l'est de la France pour se rendre compte d'un changement d'architecture assez net entre les versants occidentaux et orientaux des Vosges - le passage d'un ambiance nord-Française à une ambiance plus typiquement centre-Européenne telle qu'on la retrouve en Alsace suit assez nettement cette frontière linguistique. Il en est de même dans la région du Tyrol Italien, qui présente des caractéristiques architecturales nettement plus "Autrichiennes" que nord-Italienne.
Quote:
I wasn't being entirely serious.
It's just that I don't think of Auvergne as being part of 'Southern Europe'. I don't really know why, but I don't.
I actually think I know. I think it is because, generally speaking English-speaking cultures tend to think France as a whole not being southern European. And Auvergne is situated in a quite centralish region of France, so considering it a southern European would mean that most of France is, which seems difficult to recognise in these cultures. While Auvergne is in reality situated at the same latitudes than the Venezian area, which being in Italy and being opened on the mediterranean (adriatic), is considered southern European from a English-speaking point of view.
The second reason is maybe the principal one; it is because when you've been there it didn't fit with the the stereotype of southern Europe which seem to be spread in Northern cultures; as something being "hot (or at least warm), very dry, with plants that are seen as exotic such as palms or olive-trees. Actually this coresponds to regions of mediterranean climate areas, to which Auvergne, being a plateaus and moutains regions quite distant from the sea isn't part - while it is culturally a regions of southern France, which was speaking a occitan language.
Porthos
Quote:
I actually think I know. I think it is because, generally speaking English-speaking cultures tend to think France as a whole not being southern European. And Auvergne is situated in a quite centralish region of France, so considering it a southern European would mean that most of France is, which seems difficult to recognise in these cultures. While Auvergne is in reality situated at the same latitudes than the Venezian area, which being in Italy and being opened on the mediterranean (adriatic), is considered southern European from a English-speaking point of view.
The second reason is maybe the principal one; it is because when you've been there it didn't fit with the the stereotype of southern Europe which seem to be spread in Northern cultures; as something being "hot (or at least warm), very dry, with plants that are seen as exotic such as palms or olive-trees. Actually this coresponds to regions of mediterranean climate areas, to which Auvergne, being a plateaus and moutains regions quite distant from the sea isn't part - while it is culturally a regions of southern France, which was speaking a occitan language.
Well I think we tend to think of southern France as being "southern European", but the north of France carries a different ambiance, and the people are not what we would normally associate with the south of Europe, so for us, they're sort of central European.
But why is that you think only the "Anglo-Saxons" feel this way about France? Most northern Europeans of other Germanic speaking cultures seem to feel this way as well from my experience.
fab
Quote:
Well I think we tend to think of southern France as being "southern European", but the north of France carries a different ambiance, and the people are not what we would normally associate with the south of Europe, so for us, they're sort of central European.
But why is that you think only the "Anglo-Saxons" feel this way about France? Most northern Europeans of other Germanic speaking cultures seem to feel this way as well from my experience.
No, that also how we consider ourselves geographically speaking. I myself always defended the idea that northern France was geographically in a sort of transition area.
What I have heard is that many English-speaking peoples would tend to feel/thought that France was a northern European country as UK, Netherlands or Germany are, and not always only the north part of it. And this was a surprise for me... while Germany seemed to many to be an Alpine region!
Benjamin [inactive]
Well, many English people would not consider Germany, the Germans or the German language to be any less 'foreign' than France, the French or the French language. I didn't either until I actually went to Germany, and I know many people from England who would actually say that they feel a greater cultural affinity with France than with any country in Europe outside of the British Isles. On the other hand, I find that people usually see Spain/Spanish and Italy/Italian as being more 'foreign' than France/French and obviously Germany/German.
Fredrik
Now, in Norway, where good old-fashioned bourgeois Bildung is so lacking, you often get very funny opinions about this. People will often be surprised if you tell them that you feel a greater cultural affinity to Germany than to Syria or to France than Senegal, because for them everything that isn't Scandinavian or Anglophone is just equally foreign!
Uriel
Quote:
Well, many English people would not consider Germany, the Germans or the German language to be any less 'foreign' than France, the French or the French language. I didn't either until I actually went to Germany, and I know many people from England who would actually say that they feel a greater cultural affinity with France than with any country in Europe outside of the British Isles. On the other hand, I find that people usually see Spain/Spanish and Italy/Italian as being more 'foreign' than France/French and obviously Germany/German.
Well, my German stepbrother hardly considers the British to even be European -- he says they are a group unto themselves! Which is sort of the impression I've gotten from talking to various Brits -- they are often very ambivalent about the European thing. Some of it has to do with how much or how little they embrace EU membership, although "Europe" and "the EU" are different concepts, of course. Even the ones who embrace the EU seem like they really had to bite the bullet to take that plunge -- almost like an "I don't necessarily like it, but dammit, that's the future -- might as well" attitude (or at least a "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude). More fatalistic than wholehearted. (With the exception of our Benjamin, of course. )
But I suppose that given the traditional British division of the place into "the UK" (us) and "the Continent" (everybody else), I suppose it's pretty understandable.
I think for Americans, all Europeans are equally foreign to us -- even the British and Irish are just foreigners that we can understand (sometimes).
greg in noord-frankrijk
Icke wrote:
It is strange that various countries or cultures group the Western European countries together differently. In Germany for example, Britain is not considered as Northern European, but just as Western European, although parts of Scotland stretches into the northern part.
Sehr interessant ! Moi aussi je considère l'Angleterre, le Pays-de-Galles et les Irlandes (libre & occupée) comme faisant partie, avant tout, de l'Europe occidentale. Le cas de l'Écosse est spécial. Western France, too, is the very quintessence of Europe occidentale, as is most of Northern Iberia.
Benjamin [inactive]
Uriel wrote:
Well, my German stepbrother hardly considers the British to even be European -- he says they are a group unto themselves! Which is sort of the impression I've gotten from talking to various Brits -- they are often very ambivalent about the European thing. Some of it has to do with how much or how little they embrace EU membership, although "Europe" and "the EU" are different concepts, of course. Even the ones who embrace the EU seem like they really had to bite the bullet to take that plunge -- almost like an "I don't necessarily like it, but dammit, that's the future -- might as well" attitude (or at least a "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude). More fatalistic than wholehearted. (With the exception of our Benjamin, of course. )
But I suppose that given the traditional British division of the place into "the UK" (us) and "the Continent" (everybody else), I suppose it's pretty understandable.
I'd say that the 'we are not Europeans' attitude in Britain it is declining, as it is mainly an attitude that older people tend to have. Indeed, I regularly hear things mentioned on the radio where it is assumed that Britain is part of Europe — for example they might say on the news, 'according to new studies, Britain has the highest rate of ______ in Europe' or something. Likewise, I almost never hear anyone younger than about 50 say 'the Continent' — rather, they'd say 'mainland Europe' instead. Essentially, I believe that this is because many older people are still influenced by British Exceptionalism — the theory/belief that 'British culture' is distinct from 'European culture'. As far as I'm concerned, that belief is totally ridiculous and is supported neither by an historical perspective nor by any observation of reality, but it was a mainstream view in the 19th century. And since school textbooks can often be 30 years out of date... you get the idea.
What I've noticed is that British people are almost never both pro-EU and pro-US. There is very much a 'one or the other' attitude. There seems to be an overall sentiment that, ultimately, Britain will either become the 51st state of the United States of America, or will be part of a United States of Europe run by France and Germany. Neither option seems desirable to most people.
As for my attitude towards the European Union, I'd say that I'm cynical-positive. On the one hand, I think that it's excessively corrupt and I think that it has a neo-liberal economic agenda aimed at promoting the interests of large wealthy businesses and transnational corporations. But on the other hand, it has succeeded (more or less) in maintaining peace in Europe.
fab
Quote:
Moi aussi je considère l'Angleterre, le Pays-de-Galles et les Irlandes (libre & occupée) comme faisant partie, avant tout, de l'Europe occidentale.
Bien sur, mais autant ni plus que Les Pays-Bas, l'Allemagne, L'Espagne, L'Italie, la Scandinavie, etc... Tous sont ouest-Européens, bien que notre monde post-guerre froide ce term a pogressivement de moins en moins de sens.
Ou bien par "Europe occidentale" défini-tu plutot une acception restrictive, que l'on pourrait associer au monde "Atlantique" - Ceci à particulièrement du sens d'un point de vue purement géographique, en ce qui concerne les regions climatiques (et un certaine ambiance architecturale qui va avec) et biogeographiques (végétation), sur le plan linguistique et culturel celà n'a pas vraiment de sens.
Quote:
Le cas de l'Écosse est spécial.
Pourquoi ? j'associerait l'Ecosse plus facilement à cette Europe "Atlantique", que l'Angleterre, qui est plus dans l'Europe de la mer du nord.
D'ailleurs cette représentation de l'Europe en fonction non-pas des masses continentales mais de leur façades a pour moi pas mal de sens non plus - car historiquement beaucoup de peuples se sont organisés et influencés autour des mers partageant des caractéristiques géographiques similaires.
Voilà ce un exemple de ce que celà peut donner:
Quote:
Western France, too, is the very quintessence of Europe occidentale, as is most of Northern Iberia.
I would precice north-western France. I won't associate the south-west from Ile d'Yeu to Pays Basque with the "quintessential tipical atlantic" Europe as Britanny woul be: the ambiance is clearly different and the climate less atlantic, with more hot and mediterranean-influenced summers, most of the traditional architecture is of "mediterranean" look. which is not the case for Asturias and Galician coasts.
Icke
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Sehr interessant ! Moi aussi je considère l'Angleterre, le Pays-de-Galles et les Irlandes (libre & occupée) comme faisant partie, avant tout, de l'Europe occidentale.
Greg, je suis du même avis que toi et cela signifie que je m'approuve -même, lol
Uriel
I always find this ridiculous idea that the British have of being the "51st state" completely amusing ...
...it assumes that we would invite you to join in the first place!
It seems to be a common error on the part of the British (and I guess others) to assume that the US is really, really gung-ho about expanding its membership (despite the glaring fact that we haven't added a state in over 50 years, and probably wouldn't even want the closest thing to a possible candidate -- Puerto Rico -- as one; a mutual disdain, by the way).
It's even more amusing to realize that they believe statehood is something we would impose on an area by force -- apparently they are not even slightly acquainted with all the maneuverings and hoops that territories historically had tojump through just through to get congressional approval for an upgrade to statehood!
I remember watching John Le Carre's The Tailor of Panama, and being completely bemused by the "American" general's assertion that we needed to invade Panama ... because the flag needed another star on it!
That is soooo not how it has ever worked!
André in Zuid-Afrika
Uriel wrote:
I always find this ridiculous idea that the British have of being the "51st state" completely amusing ...
...it assumes that we would invite you to join in the first place!
I remember in the early eighties a book was published which seriously suggested that South Africa should become the 51st state. The author believed it to be a perfect solution.... a black governor (which would make black South Africans happy) and a white president (which would make white South Africans happy)...
But of course, we never received an invitation to join, so that was that...
Benjamin [inactive]
There's actually a small political party in Northern Ireland called the Ulster American Party which actually advocates that Northern Ireland become the 51st state as a means of solving the problems there. They seem to assume that the United States would have them if they wanted to join — do you think they would?
I read something on the internet the other day which suggested that, if Northern Ireland were to join the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland, then the Irish would probably want to look to join the United States, apparently to ensure 'religious freedoms for all'. Um, I don't think so, lol. And freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the Republic of Ireland anyway.
Joanne
Benjamin wrote:
There's actually a small political party in Northern Ireland called the Ulster American Party which actually advocates that Northern Ireland become the 51st state.
What? Why? Well, as long as it remains a small political party...
Benjamin [inactive]
Joanne wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
There's actually a small political party in Northern Ireland called the Ulster American Party which actually advocates that Northern Ireland become the 51st state.
What? Why? Well, as long as it remains a small political party...
There are all sorts of 'what should we do with Northern Ireland' campaign groups and political parties. Obviously the two main views are either to keep the status quo with Northern Ireland being part of the UK, or for Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. There are then two somewhat significant 'minor' views — one of which would be for Northern Ireland to become a completely independent country, whilst the other would be for the whole of Ireland to rejoin the UK. And then there are a number of rather eccentric views, many of which seem to involve the United States in some way.
Fredrik
Probably because a lot of Ulster Scots emigrated to the US and had a profound impact on that country. I wonder if the religious fanaticism (Evangelical Christians etc.) in the US somehow can be traced back to Northern Ireland and the Protestant "siege mentality" you can find there....
Benjamin [inactive]
Fredrik wrote:
Probably because a lot of Ulster Scots emigrated to the US and had a profound impact on that country. I wonder if the religious fanaticism (Evangelical Christians etc.) in the US somehow can be traced back to Northern Ireland and the Protestant "siege mentality" you can find there....
What, like the Fundamentalist Protestant Rev Dr Ian Paisley, who's leader of both the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist Party, which is currently the largest political party there?
I usually assume that people like him have some sort of personality disorder. But you're right — he's certainly a religious fanatic.
Uriel
My god, does the phrase "too far away" not mean anything to you people?!!
Look, I know we got a little crazy with Alaska and Hawaii. But they're the exceptions, and we promise it won't happen again!
Funny story I read somewhere -- after the US bought Alaska from Russia, some Siberians were seen to be crying.
"Are you sad that Russia sold off your cousins in Alaska?" they were asked.
"No," they sniffled -- "we're sad that they didn't sell us, too!"
Fredrik
Consider this: In "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" Professor David Hackett Fischer identifies a Borderlands to Backcountry "folkway" of Protestant Scots from the Lowland Borders region and Northern Ireland who settled in the backcountry in and around the Appalachians in the 18th century. It is perhaps no coïncidence that the the two hotbeds of both British and American Protestant fanaticism are dominated by the same ethnic heritage. And the amazing number of US Presidents of more or less Scots-Irish ancestry just proves the strong link between militant democracy and militant Protestantism, not at least the fact that the first Scots-Irish president was Andrew Jackson, the first populist president.
There is a worringly strong historical link between George Bush and Ian Paisley.
greg in noord-frankrijk
fab wrote:
Quote:
Le cas de l'Écosse est spécial.
Pourquoi ? j'associerait l'Ecosse plus facilement à cette Europe "Atlantique", que l'Angleterre, qui est plus dans l'Europe de la mer du nord.
La façade orientale de l'Écosse est baignée par la mer du Nord, non ?
fab wrote:
Quote:
Western France, too, is the very quintessence of Europe occidentale, as is most of Northern Iberia.
I would precice north-western France. I won't associate the south-west from Ile d'Yeu to Pays Basque with the "quintessential tipical atlantic" Europe as Britanny woul be: the ambiance is clearly different and the climate less atlantic, with more hot and mediterranean-influenced summers, most of the traditional architecture is of "mediterranean" look. which is not the case for Asturias and Galician coasts.
Pour avoir vécu dans le nord, le centre et le sud du Golfe de Gascogne, je maintiens que la France occidentale se distingue de la France orientale (ne serait-ce que par le niveau des précipitations et leur régime) même si le cours inférieur de la Loire demeure une frontière symbolique très forte, comme tu le relevais. À ce titre, le cas de la Bretagne est très spécial, comme celui de l'Écosse. Le cours inférieur de l'Adour est également une frontière, certes moins célèbre que la Ligérie atlantique.
Joanne
Fredrik wrote:
There is a worringly strong historical link between George Bush and Ian Paisley.
*sigh* I think you're a little fixated, Fredrik. It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). You realize he's leaving office after this term, right?
Fredrik
Yeah, but the Evangelical Ulster-American hillbillies will remain.
Benjamin wrote:
I read something on the internet the other day which suggested that, if Northern Ireland were to join the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland, then the Irish would probably want to look to join the United States, apparently to ensure 'religious freedoms for all'. Um, I don't think so, lol. And freedom of religion is already guaranteed by the Republic of Ireland anyway.
I've always found it rather endearing that the Irish elected a Protestant, Douglas Hyde, as their first president, so that no-one could accuse them of having formed a confessional state. But Hyde was an Anglican and perhaps Paisley and his Presbyterian mates view that as almost as bad as "Papist"...
Uriel
The Scotch-Irish influence is a long time past in the US, Fredrik. Back when we were a little less ethnically diverse, they used to be a bigger percentage of the population. But not so much anymore ... plus, it's not like political philosophies are genetic, you know.
If you wanted to just go by stats, you could say that Virginia must be the most influential state in the country, because so many presidents came from that one state. But that's just because back in the day it was one of the most heavily populated states (not to mention the first British colony founded). These days, it's just another little Atlantic state -- it's been far overshadowed by NY, Cali, Texas, and Florida.
As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Fredrik
Uriel wote
Quote:
plus, it's not like political philosophies are genetic, you know.
True, but the inbred Scots-Irish hillbillies might be an exception to that rule.
Who else are these Evangelical Potestants? I guess it would be rather unusual for Hispanics to be Evangelical Chistians, or?
Considering that it was Saint Patrick's Day yesterday, I just have to excuse my prejudices against the Scots-Irish with being a romantic at heart in favour of a united Ireland....
Fredrik
BTW speaking of Paisley. When the Pope adressed the European parliament, the honourable member Paisley stood up an shouted that the Pope was the Antichrist and waved a big anti-Papist banner! He was then "disarmed" and "escorted" out by the honourable member for Bavaria, Otto von Habsburg, the son of the last Austrian emperor (who now has been beatified by the Catholic church).
You gotta love Paisley for that, his anti-Papism is cool (and something that appeals to me in a sentimental fashion.)
André in Zuid-Afrika
Uriel wrote:
My god, does the phrase "too far away" not mean anything to you people?!!
Look, I know we got a little crazy with Alaska and Hawaii. But they're the exceptions, and we promise it won't happen again!
Funny story I read somewhere -- after the US bought Alaska from Russia, some Siberians were seen to be crying.
"Are you sad that Russia sold off your cousins in Alaska?" they were asked.
"No," they sniffled -- "we're sad that they didn't sell us, too!"
Hm, distance shouldn't be a problem...
Uriel
Fredrik wrote:
Uriel wote
Quote:
plus, it's not like political philosophies are genetic, you know.
True, but the inbred Scots-Irish hillbillies might be an exception to that rule.
Who else are these Evangelical Potestants? I guess it would be rather unusual for Hispanics to be Evangelical Chistians, or?
Considering that it was Saint Patrick's Day yesterday, I just have to excuse my prejudices against the Scots-Irish with being a romantic at heart in favour of a united Ireland....
Well, a new development in American politics is that the Republicans have actually started picking up a lot of the Hispanic vote, because traditional Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants actually have a lot in common in terms of their socially conservative views -- they're usually pretty eye-to-eye when it comes to opinions about marriage, gays, abortion, sex, religious education, etc. We don't tend to sweat the little details of religious ideology as much anymore -- there isn't much anti-Papism (what an old-fashioned word!) these days. And a lot of the core philosophy of that side of the political scene is not so much about religious practice per se as it is about social conservatism, even though we tend to lump the whole thing under the evangelical or fundamentalist banner -- it's actually not confined to any one denomination. Look at Mitt Romney, one of the dark horse contenders for the conservative Christian Republican presidential candidacy -- he's a Mormon.
And you may be surprised to know that while most Hispanics are certainly Catholic (to some degree or other), there are sizeable numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Baptists, Methodists, etc. among them -- as well as Jews (there is a very strange little Crypto-Jew tradition in NM -- Spanish settlers who were outwardly Catholic to their neighbors, but kept the Jewish faith in secret -- so secretly that over the centuries, being cut off from the rest of the Jewish tradition, their practices diverged to the point of being unrecognizable by modern Judaic standards.)
And as far as I know, Saint Patrick's Day isn't until March 17th -- you guzzling the green beer early this year?
greg in noord-frankrijk
Fredrik wrote:
There is a worringly strong historical link between George Bush and Ian Paisley.
And strong analogies too : two god-fearing, peace-loving Tartuffes.
Uriel wrote:
I always find this ridiculous idea that the British have of being the "51st state" completely amusing ...
...it assumes that we would invite you to join in the first place!
It seems to be a common error on the part of the British (and I guess others) to assume that the US is really, really gung-ho about expanding its membership (despite the glaring fact that we haven't added a state in over 50 years, and probably wouldn't even want the closest thing to a possible candidate -- Puerto Rico -- as one; a mutual disdain, by the way).
Exactly ! And that's what makes the UK collaboration to the US invasion tragically pathetic : neither Delaware nor Whitehall have their say on how the "coalition of the willing" should be managed....
Uriel
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Uriel wrote:
I always find this ridiculous idea that the British have of being the "51st state" completely amusing ...
...it assumes that we would invite you to join in the first place!
It seems to be a common error on the part of the British (and I guess others) to assume that the US is really, really gung-ho about expanding its membership (despite the glaring fact that we haven't added a state in over 50 years, and probably wouldn't even want the closest thing to a possible candidate -- Puerto Rico -- as one; a mutual disdain, by the way).
Exactly ! And that's what makes the UK collaboration to the US invasion tragically pathetic : neither Delaware nor Whitehall have their say on how the "coalition of the willing" should be managed....
Umm, I don't get the link. There's no parallel between being invited to join a country and two separate countries being allied in a war.
Fredrik
It's funny which images a clinical and neutral map can conjure up. Seeing greg's wonderful map, my eyes immediately sought the river of my childhood holiday paradise, Sira, and followed it to its paradisical source. It's the river just to the left of the little bump sticking out west of Norway's southwesternmost point - on height with Scottish John o' Groats:
That river, Sira, flows through the valley of Sirdal, a land of small beaver dams and enormous hydroelectrical power dams, cloudberries and happy holidays:
Looks quite similar to its Grampian counterpart on the othe side of the Norh Sea, doesn't it?
Benjamin [inactive]
What that map's made me realise is how tiny Scotland is compared to Norway. I often think of them as being sort of about the same size, because they're both 'small' countries with about the same population, although amazingly Norway actually has a larger area than the whole of Britain.
fab
I almost always think Scandinavian countries as being big (excpted Denmark), even if not having a very important demographic weight.
Actually I think the UK as a powerful and major European country but has a relative small area compared to its importance, if not taking acount of Russia, it is 10th biggest European country for it size.
1 Ukraine 603,700
2 France 547,030
3 Spain 504,782
4 Sweden 449,964
5 Germany 357,021
6 Finland 337,030
7 Norway 324,220
8 Poland 312,685
9 Italy 301,230
10 United Kingdom 244,820
Fredrik
Uriel wrote:
And as far as I know, Saint Patrick's Day isn't until March 17th -- you guzzling the green beer early this year?
Oops, I only got the 17th part, not the month part!
Benjamin wrote:
Quote:
What that map's made me realise is how tiny Scotland is compared to Norway. I often think of them as being sort of about the same size, because they're both 'small' countries with about the same population, although amazingly Norway actually has a larger area than the whole of Britain.
True. For us it sounds hilarious how Scots and perhaps even Britons actually can drive from the north to the south of their country in one day! Sounds like Denmark....
fab
Quote:
True. For us it sounds hilarious how Scots and perhaps even Britons actually can drive from the north to the south of their country in one day!
actually, we can do it in France easily too. going from Paris to Nice for exemple needs about Nine hours by car. since my parents live there I regulary do it.
By train, it can be much quiker, only three hours are needed to join Paris to marseille.
by plane, it takes one hour.
Benjamin [inactive]
Yes, I suppose that Cornwall to Caithness would take about 13 hours to drive. I still wouldn't do it though!
As for the trains...
Pauline
In Belgium you can quickly go to the neighbour countries: from the northern border with Holland to the southern one with France I think it's about 90 minutes by car. From east (german or luxembourg border) to the west (coast) it's about 3-4 hours.
But, Loic's country is *much* smaller!!!
Porthos
Fredrik wrote:
Probably because a lot of Ulster Scots emigrated to the US and had a profound impact on that country. I wonder if the religious fanaticism (Evangelical Christians etc.) in the US somehow can be traced back to Northern Ireland and the Protestant "siege mentality" you can find there....
Well Fredrik is right to some extent about the Scots-Irish influence on the development of American culture.
In the pre-revolutionary days, the Scotch-Irish were one of our largest immigrant ethnic groups, and the main group which settled in the American frontier, as opposed to the English settlers who often settled in densely packed New England towns.
The culture of Appalachia and large parts of the south (and by extension, parts of the Western U.S., due to later settlment by pioneers from this region), were populated by Scotch-Irish, and old Celtic ballad traditons and Scotch-Irish musical traditions helped to create modern day American "Country" music. The Scotch-Irish were the perfect frontiersmen as they were strongly religious protestants, fiercely independent and mistrusting of government, and zealous believers in freedom and personal liberty. They were great back-woodsmen as well, with their rifles and spirited history of warcraft.
My father's family is from Arkansas and Oklahoma, and his family was largely Scotch-Irish and Welsh. I think people tend to underestimate the impact that settlers from the "Celtic Fringe" played in the formation of modern day America.
There is a book I've been wanting to read called "The Celtic Thesis", which proports that the cultural origins of the south are more than just Anglo in origin, but more a mix of "Anglo-Celtic" influences, and that the proportion of the population of the south of "Celtic" ancestry (Welsh, Scottish, Ulster Scot, Irish) is greater than assumed. It was written by McWhiney and Forrest McDonald. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about the book:
"McWhiney and Forrest McDonald were the authors of the "Celtic Thesis," which holds that most Southerners were of Celtic ancestry (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all groups he declared to be "Celtic" (Scots-Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were descended from warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. They traced numerous ways in which the Celtic culture shaped social, economic and military behavior. For example, they demonstrated that livestock raising (especially of cattle and hogs) developed a more individualistic, militant society than tilling the soil."
Benjamin [inactive]
Porthos wrote:
My father's family is from Arkansas and Oklahoma, and his family was largely Scotch-Irish and Welsh. I think people tend to underestimate the impact that settlers from the "Celtic Fringe" played in the formation of modern day America.
Except that the 'Scots-Irish' are largely descended from the Scottish Lowlands, and were traditionally Scots-speaking.
Porthos wrote:
McWhiney and Forrest McDonald were the authors of the "Celtic Thesis," which holds that most Southerners were of Celtic ancestry (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all groups he declared to be "Celtic" (Scots-Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were descended from warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. They traced numerous ways in which the Celtic culture shaped social, economic and military behavior. For example, they demonstrated that livestock raising (especially of cattle and hogs) developed a more individualistic, militant society than tilling the soil."
No offence, but thank you for convincing me not to bother reading that book. I'm sorry, but 'warlike Celtic herdsmen' and 'peaceful Anglo-Saxon farmers' sounds like a load of nonsense to me. The author also seems to be ignorant of the drastic differences in culture and lifestyle which existed between the Scottish Lowlands and the Scottish Highlands.
Porthos
Quote:
No offence, but thank you for convincing me not to bother reading that book. I'm sorry, but 'warlike Celtic herdsmen' and 'peaceful Anglo-Saxon farmers' sounds like a load of nonsense to me. The author also seems to be ignorant of the drastic differences in culture and lifestyle which existed between the Scottish Lowlands and the Scottish Highlands.
_________________
Yeah, the book sounds like a crock to me, but I'll still check it out.
fab
Quote:
I know many people from England who would actually say that they feel a greater cultural affinity with France than with any country in Europe outside of the British Isles
on what precise point do they think they feel a cultural affinity ?
Benjamin [inactive]
fab wrote:
Quote:
I know many people from England who would actually say that they feel a greater cultural affinity with France than with any country in Europe outside of the British Isles
on what precise point do they think they feel a cultural affinity ?
Well, some people here think that English is so different from Dutch and German, and that it has been so influenced by French and Latin, that it is actually more similar to French than to, say, Dutch. Indeed, I have often heard people try to argue that English is more Latin than Germanic, and people at school have traditionally learnt Latin as the classical language, apparently because it's supposed to give us 'a greater understanding of the English language' — whilst Old Saxon and suchlike has never seriously been considered. By extension, they might feel that England has been very heavily influenced by France.
Equally, middle-class, upper-middle-class and upper-class people from England have traditionally looked towards France for 'cultural inspiration'. Essentially, anything here that's considered to be 'high class' (especially food and wine) is usually of French origin.
Also, French has traditionally been (and still is) the first foreign language which people from England learn at school. Indeed, I believe that Oxford and/or Cambridge universities didn't even have a French department until about the 1920s because it was assumed that all the people likely to be attending those universities could already speak French fluently anyway. Even now, there is still an expectation that well educated people from England will have at least some knowledge of French.
And of course, France is by far the country which (at least middle class) people from England are most likely to visit. Germany no, although it has become sort of 'cool' since the World Cup.
Porthos
Quote:
Well, some people here think that English is so different from Dutch and German, and that it has been so influenced by French and Latin, that it is actually more similar to French than to, say, Dutch. Indeed, I have often heard people try to argue that English is more Latin than Germanic, and people at school have traditionally learnt Latin as the classical language, apparently because it's supposed to give us 'a greater understanding of the English language' — whilst Old Saxon and suchlike has never seriously been considered. By extension, they might feel that England has been very heavily influenced by France.
Equally, middle-class, upper-middle-class and upper-class people from England have traditionally looked towards France for 'cultural inspiration'. Essentially, anything here that's considered to be 'high class' (especially food and wine) is usually of French origin.
Also, French has traditionally been (and still is) the first foreign language which people from England learn at school. Indeed, I believe that Oxford and/or Cambridge universities didn't even have a French department until about the 1920s because it was assumed that all the people likely to be attending those universities could already speak French fluently anyway. Even now, there is still an expectation that well educated people from England will have at least some knowledge of French.
And of course, France is by far the country which (at least middle class) people from England are most likely to visit. Germany no, although it has become sort of 'cool' since the World Cup.
Yes, these are all things I see as well, although it applies more to England than to other English-speaking peoples I think. Because of all the reasons Benjamin listed, I used to think of England as having more in common with France than with Germany in a lot of ways. It wasn't until recently that my conceptions began to change on the matter. There is, and always has been a very strong Francophile sentiment in England. And more than anything, I think it's that snobbish members of English society want to identify with the French, as they see them as being more sophisticated, and look to them for cultural inspiration.
Benjamin [inactive]
Porthos wrote:
Because of all the reasons Benjamin listed, I used to think of England as having more in common with France than with Germany in a lot of ways.
I used to think that as well until I actually went to Germany.
Porthos wrote:
There is, and always has been a very strong Francophile sentiment in England. And more than anything, I think it's that snobbish members of English society want to identify with the French, as they see them as being more sophisticated, and look to them for cultural inspiration.
Absolutely. I've found that some people here seem to make this sort of association:
French or Latin = civilised, sophisticated, high class, romantic etc.
Germanic = German = 'we are not like the Germans, honest!' = dull, ugly, boring etc.
Loic
Quote:
But, Loic's country is *much* smaller!!!
Well, we were supposed to be only a city. It was through an accident of circumstances that resulted in nationhood thrusted upon us!
Loic
Quote:
Also, French has traditionally been (and still is) the first foreign language which people from England learn at school. Indeed, I believe that Oxford and/or Cambridge universities didn't even have a French department until about the 1920s because it was assumed that all the people likely to be attending those universities could already speak French fluently anyway. Even now, there is still an expectation that well educated people from England will have at least some knowledge of French.
That was Oxford. They did not have a French language department until the 1930s.
Actually, I am also of the opinion that any educated gentleman should have at least reading knowledge of French. Of course, there is a distinction between men of education and an educated gentleman and I am speaking primarily of the latter.
fab
Quote:
Equally, middle-class, upper-middle-class and upper-class people from England have traditionally looked towards France for 'cultural inspiration'. Essentially, anything here that's considered to be 'high class' (especially food and wine) is usually of French origin.
I tend to agree with Porthos, it is a phenomenon quite tipical of only the upper classes of English-speaking countries to tend to have a francophilic attitude (at least for cultural things, while often very critical toward the people) - maybe for the reasons you spoke about; because a lot of "french things" are still seen as "high-class/snobbish", etc. and seemed to be wished by people who consider that to be "high-class", one must follow the image of what they think is "french"... while it is very distant to the reality of everyday in France. I don't think it is a tipical English attitude, I discovered it actually in the USA when I stayed in a upper class family, very tipical American people in all ways, but spending most of the time saying they wanted to taste drink this or that french wine, trying to place a lot of French words in their conversation (most of the time quite inapropriately)
I must say I am a bit fed up with that association. I wasn't aware before that "France" was put in such a piedestal by some English-speaking people before I realized that.
That was surprising, because I never had though our culture or language to have any snobbish/high-class thing in it - for exemple, for us wine has never been a "high class" drink, but has always been the tipical people drink - the one that make people drunk in bars ar at home with your everyday simple meal. The same way, for us our language has nothing more cultured than any other language - we love it because that's our and speaking it make us being ourselves - but it does not carries any snobisshness in it. Actually it would be the contrary : for exemple saying "living-room" instead of "séjour / salon" could be seen as very snobbish.
I think this image of "high-class" has grown in Britain, before been exported, due to the influence that the French court had over the international courts in the 18th and beguining of 19th century, before English took over French. In England, as a remembering of the normands foundators or the kingdom, french has still had a "aristocratic" importance - which it had not in France, were it was as much the poor street language than the courts one.
Quote:
Absolutely. I've found that some people here seem to make this sort of association:
French or Latin = civilised, sophisticated, high class, romantic etc.
Germanic = German = 'we are not like the Germans, honest!' = dull, ugly, boring etc.
... yourself ?
Quote:
Also, French has traditionally been (and still is) the first foreign language which people from England learn at school
well, English is the first language learned, and by far, in most countries of the world. That doesn't make those countries culturally with particular cultural affinities with England. There is a diference between a learned culture and cultural proximity of two cultures.
Quote:
There is, and always has been a very strong Francophile sentiment in England. And more than anything, I think it's that snobbish members of English society want to identify with the French, as they see them as being more sophisticated, and look to them for cultural inspiration
I agree that to some people of the English high society there is a "wish" to adopt some attitude they identify as being "french" - that is actually difficult to say that there is a strong francophilic feeling in England. England is famous to be very francophobic. the famous tabloids, whose prefered sport seem to be french-bashing, don't give me the feeling of a very francophilic country. I don't think that the francophobia of the British is a legend, I personally had my worst experiences abroad in England when I was teenager in "séjour linguistique" . That is the only place where I experienced real xenophobia - when people insult and spit at you without reason because of your nationality.
Fredrik
Since the Norman Conquest, England often seems to have looked upon itself as a sort of parallell nation to France, with a very dynamic relationship between them. Just remember for instance how their political systems were compared all the time and the gradual English revolution in the 17th century greatly inspired the French one.
Although Germany always has been hopelessly in love with its great ideal England (why don't why we have a Shakespeare? the Germans asked themselves before Goethe, why didn't we turn into a parliamentary democracy but went so hopelessly wrong? they asked after WW2 etc etc), England has paid very scant attention to its Saxon cousin.
Benjamin [inactive]
fab wrote:
trying to place a lot of French words in their conversation (most of the time quite inapropriately)
Lol, even I don't to this, and I'm someone who actually would be able to use the French words properly.
Fab wrote:
Quote:
Absolutely. I've found that some people here seem to make this sort of association:
French or Latin = civilised, sophisticated, high class, romantic etc.
Germanic = German = 'we are not like the Germans, honest!' = dull, ugly, boring etc.
... yourself ?
I used to, yes. But I really love Germany and German now.
Actually, I realised that I was essentially German just over a year ago when I went to a conference with a lot of German students (as well as some Polish students and some other people from my school) in Poland. I had to learn some German very quickly before I went, which was interesting, because I had always been very pro-French/Spanish/Italian before, and had never really considered learning German. To my surprise, I found that it was almost like a very weird dialect of English, with lots of consonant and vowel shifts, and with a different word order. The German students looked, dressed, behaved and thought just like us. I found the whole experience rather emotional, since everything that I had ever been brought up to think about the Germans suddenly fell apart. I remember thinking: 'We fought two world wars with these people who are basically just the same as us!! What the hell was all that about?!?!' I enjoyed the conference, but afterwards I went home and cried.
All that is the reason for why I am now going to study German at university. Seriously, even though I've always been interested in languages, I would never really have considered learning German otherwise.
fab wrote:
I agree that to some people of the English high society there is a "wish" to adopt some attitude they identify as being "french" - that is actually difficult to say that there is a strong francophilic feeling in England. England is famous to be very francophobic. the famous tabloids, whose prefered sport seem to be french-bashing, don't give me the feeling of a very francophilic country.
I'm pleased that you recognise that attitudes are very different depending on the social class. I am always amazed to discover that so many people read the tabloids, because I personally don't know anyone who reads them. If anything, I think that that shows that the different social classes in England live very separate lives.
fab wrote:
I don't think that the francophobia of the British is a legend,
The British, or the English? Please make that distinction. Have you heard of the Auld Alliance? That is precisely the reason why Scottish people (of all social classes) usually have a much more positive attitude towards France.
fab wrote:
I personally had my worst experiences abroad in England when I was teenager in "séjour linguistique" . That is the only place where I experienced real xenophobia - when people insult and spit at you without reason because of your nationality.
Now do you understand why I want to renounce my nationality? Now do you understand why I intend to support Scottish independence when I live in Scotland? Because I don't want to have to be associated with these people.
It's not just French people who get abused here. I regularly hear stories of Americans being attacked in London. To be honest, I'd imagine that French people would have fewer problems than Americans now that there isn't much media focus on France anymore (a few years ago, France was heavily criticised for things like the Common Agricultural Policy).
Seriously, I know what England is like. As you can see, I have red hair. Let me tell you, from about the age of 5 to the age of 16, I experienced abuse every day at school because of the colour of my hair. People would shout insults at me, physically abuse me, spit at me etc. Although I don't have that problem at school anymore, random people still sometimes shout insults at me on the street.
It's now official, and I've essentially discovered for definite this week — I'm moving to Scotland in September, and I honestly hope that I never have to live in England on a long-term basis again.
Fredrik
Benjamin wrote:
Seriously, I know what England is like. As you can see, I have red hair. Let me tell you, from about the age of 5 to the age of 16, I experienced abuse every day at school because of the colour of my hair. People would shout insults at me, physically abuse me, spit at me etc. Although I don't have that problem at school anymore, random people still sometimes shout insults at me on the street.
I'm very sorry to hear that. And very surprised, I imagined red hair was a source of national pride in Britain.
Quote:
but afterwards I went home and cried.
Wow, Germanic brotherhood at its best! You really are Tonio Kröger!
Benjamin [inactive]
Fredrik wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Seriously, I know what England is like. As you can see, I have red hair. Let me tell you, from about the age of 5 to the age of 16, I experienced abuse every day at school because of the colour of my hair. People would shout insults at me, physically abuse me, spit at me etc. Although I don't have that problem at school anymore, random people still sometimes shout insults at me on the street.
I'm very sorry to hear that. And very surprised, I imagined red hair was a source of national pride in Britain.
I usually imagine that it is in Scotland (that country has a higher percentage of people with red hair than anywhere else in the world), but apparently not in England. Indeed, people used to tell me on a regular basis that they thought that I should die my hair brown. Admittedly, however, my hair colour was not the only reason I experienced this abuse at school — me generally being a pompous git was probably a significant factor as well.
Deborah
Benjamin wrote:
Indeed, people used to tell me on a regular basis that they thought that I should die my hair brown.
I've never understood why so many people find red hair acceptable for women but not for men. (I'm not one of those people -- I like it on both.)
Shouga
Deborah wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Indeed, people used to tell me on a regular basis that they thought that I should die my hair brown.
I've never understood why so many people find red hair acceptable for women but not for men. (I'm not one of those people -- I like it on both.)
Many people don't find it acceptable on women either.
There is such a HUGE prejudice against people with red hair, for absolutely no reason - I know of people who have been attacked, even in my own school, just because of their hair colour. It greatly saddened me to read how Benjamin also experienced this abuse for such a long time. Many of my friends have been isolated and attacked just because of the colour of their hair, and, for this to still occur nowadays, I find it completely disgusting.
Benjamin wrote:
Now do you understand why I want to renounce my nationality? Now do you understand why I intend to support Scottish independence when I live in Scotland? Because I don't want to have to be associated with these people.
...
It's now official, and I've essentially discovered for definite this week — I'm moving to Scotland in September, and I honestly hope that I never have to live in England on a long-term basis again.
Like we've discussed on MSN previously, I still find this point of view very dramatic --- we're not all that bad!!! Sure, some people dislike us, just as many people love us. We can't change the stereotypes that people give us! Any educated person coming from outside of England would know that not ALL English people are like the small minority groups that cause trouble and show England in a bad light, and to be honest, if any person thinks otherwise, then you may as well not bother associating with them in the first place.
Besides, even if you go to Scotland, you'll still be 'British', right? So you'll still get the stereotypes, regardless of where you are in Britain!
Benjamin [inactive]
Shouga wrote:
Besides, even if you go to Scotland, you'll still be 'British', right? So you'll still get the stereotypes, regardless of where you are in Britain!
Yes, but then I can argue that all the stereotypes of British people are actually based upon England. Which is largely true, for the simple reason that English people are very much the majority group in the UK.
Shouga
Benjamin wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Besides, even if you go to Scotland, you'll still be 'British', right? So you'll still get the stereotypes, regardless of where you are in Britain!
Yes, but then I can argue that all the stereotypes of British people are actually based upon England. Which is largely true, for the simple reason that English people are very much the majority group in the UK.
You just want to place all of the blame onto us English folk, don't you?
Uriel
Note to self: the English are weird.
Anyway, back to a couple pages ago -- I've always thought of Sweden and Norway and Finland as decent-sized countries (by European standards, of course ), and of the UK as well, dinky. (Both of your little British Isles will fit nicely into New Mexico ... and we are only the 5th largest state in the US.)
Given that I pretty much lump most Europeans together as "family", I have no surprise that y'all have fought two world wars against each other. Historically, it's usually been your next-door neighbors that you attack, not somebody halfway around the world. It's only in the last century with the advent of new technology that the latter has become more the norm.
Pauline
Benjamin wrote:
I experienced abuse every day at school because of the colour of my hair. People would shout insults at me, physically abuse me, spit at me etc. Although I don't have that problem at school anymore, random people still sometimes shout insults at me on the street.
It's *very* weird and horrible !!! Because of your hair colour people abuse you? I didn't never hear such a stupid thing. It seems like racism because it's based on your colour (hair instead of skin, of course ,but it's small difference). If those people would do the same to an Indian, (or really lesser abuse) then all the world will be furious like on the Big brother TV programme. There's not logic at all but it's typical haveing this mixed moral code of conduct - to be not prejudiced it apply to some but not all. Hypocrits!!!!
Benjamin [inactive]
Pauline wrote:
It's *very* weird and horrible !!! Because of your hair colour people abuse you? I didn't never hear such a stupid thing. It seems like racism because it's based on your colour (hair instead of skin, of course ,but it's small difference). If those people would do the same to an Indian, (or really lesser abuse) then all the world will be furious like on the Big brother TV programme. There's not logic at all but it's typical haveing this mixed moral code of conduct - to be not prejudiced it apply to some but not all.
Indeed. And rather ironically, many of the people who have abused me because of my hair colour have not actually been white. And to be honest, I actually believe that I would have had far less problems at school had I been black, because I have actually never seen anyone racially abusing a black person.
Pauline
Benjamin wrote:
Pauline wrote:
It's *very* weird and horrible !!! Because of your hair colour people abuse you? I didn't never hear such a stupid thing. It seems like racism because it's based on your colour (hair instead of skin, of course ,but it's small difference). If those people would do the same to an Indian, (or really lesser abuse) then all the world will be furious like on the Big brother TV programme. There's not logic at all but it's typical haveing this mixed moral code of conduct - to be not prejudiced it apply to some but not all.
Indeed. And rather ironically, many of the people who have abused me because of my hair colour have not actually been white. And to be honest, I actually believe that I would have had far less problems at school had I
been black, because I have actually never seen anyone racially abusing a black person.
Yes, because being racist to a black person is not accepted (this is correct of course)but being racist to a person with your hair colour is accepted; it's the only possible conclusion. It's inconcistent and HYPOCRISY
It's *very* annoying when people advise / tell that if you clearly set limits, the bullies don't go past this limit. It is absolutly *not* true. Anyway, how can you clearly set a limit with such racists and bullies? They have not the interest to know and bullies /racists are *always* the guilty ones (my opinion). I can write a thesis on this subject, but I havn't time
You can try to educate those idiotic people, but it wouldn't have succes as they are stupid.
We must buy some green lasers !!!!
Icke
Quote:
Let me tell you, from about the age of 5 to the age of 16, I experienced abuse every day at school because of the colour of my hair.
It's really sad to hear that, Benjamin! There are all kinds of prejudices nearly everywhere you go. In SW-Germany where I live, red hair is not uncommon and isn't that unpopular at all, actually. There are at least 12 red-haired persons I personally know that just enter my mind. I am surely not the only one when I say that I find light reddish hair rather sexy
My brother and his girlfriend recently told me that they wish to have a red-haired baby. Considering the fact that they both are blond-haired, this venture will lead to a complete failure, lol.
Pauline
Icke wrote:
Jeder hat ein Recht auf meine Meinung!
LOL!!!!
Your brother and his girlfriend can adopt Benjamin !!! Then he can live in Germany
Icke
Pauline wrote:
Your brother and his girlfriend can adopt Benjamin !!! Then he can live in Germany
lol, Pauline, you always make me laugh
fab
Quote:
Now do you understand why I want to renounce my nationality? Now do you understand why I intend to support Scottish independence when I live in Scotland? Because I don't want to have to be associated with these people.
I want to precise that I gave this exemple to explain that I don't feel England as being particulary francophile. That doesn't help that I aslo had more luck during other trips in England - I remember having being another time in a very nice family.
Concerning hatred and intolerance towards nationality, skin color, physical apperance, sexual orientation or other, I think that we can unfortunally find them on every place. I don't know if Scotland (or any country) is really different from England on this point of view.
I am on the other way surprised about the fact of being insulted for your hair color - to me you actually look like an average English person.
Here red hair is pretty rare (exceptd dyed red hair for women which is very common), maybe some red-haired people can be moqued because that is unusual - But I didn't expected that in England.
Porthos
fab wrote:
Quote:
Equally, middle-class, upper-middle-class and upper-class people from England have traditionally looked towards France for 'cultural inspiration'. Essentially, anything here that's considered to be 'high class' (especially food and wine) is usually of French origin.
I tend to agree with Porthos, it is a phenomenon quite tipical of only the upper classes of English-speaking countries to tend to have a francophilic attitude (at least for cultural things, while often very critical toward the people) - maybe for the reasons you spoke about; because a lot of "french things" are still seen as "high-class/snobbish", etc. and seemed to be wished by people who consider that to be "high-class", one must follow the image of what they think is "french"... while it is very distant to the reality of everyday in France. I don't think it is a tipical English attitude, I discovered it actually in the USA when I stayed in a upper class family, very tipical American people in all ways, but spending most of the time saying they wanted to taste drink this or that french wine, trying to place a lot of French words in their conversation (most of the time quite inapropriately)
I must say I am a bit fed up with that association. I wasn't aware before that "France" was put in such a piedestal by some English-speaking people before I realized that.
That was surprising, because I never had though our culture or language to have any snobbish/high-class thing in it - for exemple, for us wine has never been a "high class" drink, but has always been the tipical people drink - the one that make people drunk in bars ar at home with your everyday simple meal. The same way, for us our language has nothing more cultured than any other language - we love it because that's our and speaking it make us being ourselves - but it does not carries any snobisshness in it. Actually it would be the contrary : for exemple saying "living-room" instead of "séjour / salon" could be seen as very snobbish.
I think this image of "high-class" has grown in Britain, before been exported, due to the influence that the French court had over the international courts in the 18th and beguining of 19th century, before English took over French. In England, as a remembering of the normands foundators or the kingdom, french has still had a "aristocratic" importance - which it had not in France, were it was as much the poor street language than the courts one.
Quote:
Absolutely. I've found that some people here seem to make this sort of association:
French or Latin = civilised, sophisticated, high class, romantic etc.
Germanic = German = 'we are not like the Germans, honest!' = dull, ugly, boring etc.
... yourself ?
Quote:
Also, French has traditionally been (and still is) the first foreign language which people from England learn at school
well, English is the first language learned, and by far, in most countries of the world. That doesn't make those countries culturally with particular cultural affinities with England. There is a diference between a learned culture and cultural proximity of two cultures.
Quote:
There is, and always has been a very strong Francophile sentiment in England. And more than anything, I think it's that snobbish members of English society want to identify with the French, as they see them as being more sophisticated, and look to them for cultural inspiration
I agree that to some people of the English high society there is a "wish" to adopt some attitude they identify as being "french" - that is actually difficult to say that there is a strong francophilic feeling in England. England is famous to be very francophobic. the famous tabloids, whose prefered sport seem to be french-bashing, don't give me the feeling of a very francophilic country. I don't think that the francophobia of the British is a legend, I personally had my worst experiences abroad in England when I was teenager in "séjour linguistique" . That is the only place where I experienced real xenophobia - when people insult and spit at you without reason because of your nationality.
Lol, this reminds me of a British television show on BBC called "Keeping up Appearances". The main character was a middle aged working class woman, who was always attempting to be a middle-class person of refined tastes and sophistication. Her last name was "Bucket", but she instisted on it being pronounced "Bouquet" so that it would sound French. Lol, what a crack up.
Deborah
I don't know how much francophilia there is in the US today, but my mother (b. 1920) and her friends adored everything French. My mother, at least -- I don't know about her friends -- abhorred everything German.
greg in noord-frankrijk
Uriel wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Uriel wrote:
I always find this ridiculous idea that the British have of being the "51st state" completely amusing ...
...it assumes that we would invite you to join in the first place!
It seems to be a common error on the part of the British (and I guess others) to assume that the US is really, really gung-ho about expanding its membership (despite the glaring fact that we haven't added a state in over 50 years, and probably wouldn't even want the closest thing to a possible candidate -- Puerto Rico -- as one; a mutual disdain, by the way).
Exactly ! And that's what makes the UK collaboration to the US invasion tragically pathetic : neither Delaware nor Whitehall have their say on how the "coalition of the willing" should be managed....
Umm, I don't get the link. There's no parallel between being invited to join a country and two separate countries being allied in a war.
I can see one , though : if ad-hoc military "alliance" turns out to be a hollow word as it has been rather than fair partnership as it was sold to the British masses, how can a political merger be envisaged at all ?!
Fredrik
Porthos wrote:
Lol, this reminds me of a British television show on BBC called "Keeping up Appearances". The main character was a middle aged working class woman, who was always attempting to be a middle-class person of refined tastes and sophistication. Her last name was "Bucket", but she instisted on it being pronounced "Bouquet" so that it would sound French. Lol, what a crack up.
We get that show in Norway too and I too like it very much. It's a wonderful starter's introduction to social linguistics. But mind you, never tell Hyacinth Bouquet that she is a "working-class woman". She will send her embroidery-loving gay son Sheridan to beat you up! In Britain they have something called "lower middle class", you know!
And concerning the limitations of francophilia: Although Hyacinth insists on French ancestry (Huguenot, if I recall correctly), she always adds "but don't worry, we have no dirty French habits in our family anymore"!
The author believed it to be a perfect solution.... a black governor (which would make black South Africans happy) and a white president (which would make white South Africans happy)... 
Well, as long as it remains a 
Hypocrits!!!! 
We must buy some green lasers !!!!