So you’re saying that a (hypothetical) war involving every country in the world exept the USA would not be a world war?
While in Germany, I’ve witnessed friends being lectured to about the inadequacies of American vacation time, told that we had our guest-house thermostat set at an ecologically-unfriendly setting, and later in Prague, asked if we agreed with the US being the “world’s policeman.”
My impression is that Europeans are fed a heavy diet of American Hegemony, the inevitability of which leads some to resentment and occasional joy in cutting Americans down to size. An analogy that comes to mind is the great American past time of California bashing.
They’re like any large group. Most of them are good people. A few are not. One thing I have noted is that when any European begins a sentence with the words “You Americans…” what follows inevitably pisses me off.
Yup I guess you’re right :smack:
Honestly…you Americans
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Okay, in answer to this…
also…
…and some other general comments about integration i’m going to rise to answering this, because whilst i can see where you, dseid are coming from i think there are some things that both yourself and mswas think you understand that you don’t which is throwing some of your points way off.
Please note that this post solely looks at what you’re talking about from a British perspective and should not necessarily be taken as in any way relevant to other European nations.
Firstly - and most importantly of all - i think that you’re both misinterpreting what being “British” actually means. It always was, and always will be, an all-encompasing term. By this I mean that its not the name of a country, its the name of a grouping of countries. In many ways as a term it is not dissimilar to “European” in that it is, and always has been, a generalisation. In fact go back long enough (or speak to certain Scots, Welsh or even English with strong feelings on the matter) and you’ll find that they associate with it no more as a personal identity than with the the term “European.”
“So what?!” I hear you cry, well here’s the what - language (and people) change in funny and often unexpected ways and so it was with the term “British,” as a fair few Brits began to discover after WW2 (and a fewer number had begun to discover before then). This discovery largely came about when a whole bunch of people started arriving from places like the Caribbean (or India or any other place where we’d spent several hundred years sending redcoats out to) claiming to be “British.”
Now you can imagine just how well that went down with your average joe - not only were this lot funny fucking foreign types - but they had the audacity to claim that they were bloody British as well!
Trouble was that upon further investigation not only did they have many of the vital qualities needed to be British - such as a basic knowledge of the Royal Family, a full acceptance of the fact that colour is spelt with a “u” and the ability to make a decent cup of tea - but they also had the damn documents to prove it. This was because the British Nationalities Act explicitly stated that being “British” meant being “a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.”
You see, it turned out that alongside industry, science, decent team sports, syphillis and many of the other wonderful things we’d exported to the colonies was “Britishness.” In fact, the major purpose of the 1948 Nationalities Act in the first place had been to ensure that citizens of Commonwealth countries could still be British. It was a direct response to Canada’s citizenship law of 1946 and was enacted with the agreement of all Commonwealth countries to ensure that no choice be necessary between being a citizen of the specific country in which you lived and being a British Citizen.
Not only where these foreign types British, but they had the passports and beaureaucracy (and god knows we love a bit of beaureaucracy) to prove it.
Not everyone was happy about that of course, but c’est la vie, and whilst Enoch Powell got busy making speeches that even Oswald Mosely would have blushed at, the Governments of the day got busy doing what governments do best in situations such as this. They started making big noises about doing something about the whole issue whilst actually doing as little as possible about it, because they knew that broadly speaking nothing was wrong as we desperately needed the workers and the whole racism/immigration thing was -and indeed is - rather distasteful and stupid.
Things weren’t easy for those immigrants of course - far from it, and they got even more serious in the sixties, as jobs became fewer and immigration continued at a record pace. Indeed after America closed up on immigration in the 50s Britain became the favoured destination for immigrants from the Caribbean with over 250,000 arriving between 1955 and 1962 alone, and that figure doesn’t even include immigration from anywhere else in the commonwealth not least of all India (Britain didn’t have any barrier at all on immigration from the Commonwealth until 1962 when the immigration laws gradually began to be tightened up). Over the next 50 odd years there have been race riots, bigotry, hatred (from both sides), mickey-mouse laws and various other nasty things facing immigrants and the sons and daughters of immigrants in this country but slowly, inexorably and - to be honest - almost inadvertantly the definition of “British” as something almost extra-national took root.
Basically its very hard to keep arguing that someone isn’t British just because “they’re different” when you can’t pin down what actually makes someone “British” in the first place and yes, now that you mention it, it is rather wonderful now how you can actually find a local shop open on a sunday and… wow… this jamaican 'erb is rather good actually isn’t it… hmmm… i tell you what i could really go for a curry right now…
All of which, in a long-winded, roundabout kinda way (sorry about that) brings us up-to-date and to my point, which is this:
That the term “British” has always been, and indeed still is, an all-inclusive identity. Partially through design, partially through accident and in no small part through the blood shed by many and the tireless and continuing political and cultural efforts of many others the “British Identity” has for many people (and probably many more who don’t even realise it, so culturally embedded has it become) become something that is available to all regardless of class, creed or country and for which the only qualification needs be residency on this small rainy bit of northern Europe and a general willingness to be nice to everyone else and talk about how horrible the weather is once in a while.
Now there are obviously a whole raft of reasons why Britain has immigration and integration problems at the moment - some of which would be very familiar to Enoch and his crew and some of which are brand spangly new 21st Century ones. Its easy sometimes, however, to miss the fact that for many - indeed i’d argue the majority of British people out there - one of big causes of uneasiness with some immigrants (or dissaffected youths born here) isn’t that they dress differently, hold radical beliefs (unless these go against that whole “generally being nice” thing) or don’t learn the language (although that does make the conversations about the weather more difficult), its that a lot of people have worked bloody hard to make being “British” an open thing and it’s rather impolite, rude and slightly worrying (given the seemingly minor requirements mentioned above) when that’s rejected without good reason - particularly if you’re not even prepared to share the bits of your existing identity with us which we’ve a sneaking suspicion we’d rather like, or hold a decent conversation on what is wrong with Britishness in its current form and how we can go about fixing it.
Indeed to many existing immigrants its a double insult because they were the ones who had to fight so hard to make it an inclusive term in the first place and also makes them look bad.
I guess it’s a bit like going to someone else’s house for dinner and taking your own food:
So basically don’t confuse “Britishness” with being an all or nothing identity - being British absolutely does not mean you have to stop being whatever else you are, in fact if you’d did so you’d probably be in the minority.
Britishness works to exactly the same principle as the American tendency to double barrel their origin (“I’m Irish-American”). I’m English. My dad is Welsh and my mother is Irish but we’re all British, and so is my mate Ying who is also chinese, my mate Paul who is also Nigerian and my mate Sandra who’s South African, as are several thousand Asian guys and girls in Birmingham amongst many millions of others.
Anyway…
Erm…
…so yeah that is what Britishness is in broad massively general sweeping terms…
…Carry On. :o
Posted withoukt bothering to read any other posts:
I think Europeans must be awfully tired of us Americans reminding them how many times we saved/whipped their asses in the first half of the 20th century. I think they must be bone weary of our arrogance, our shrill nationalism, our hypocrisy and our self-pity. They’re probably sick to death of our “culture” and our “history”, especially since we borrowed most of the former from them and are overly proud of the latter. They probably don’t hate us, but they’re probably very, very tired of us.
Well said, garius.
I realize now how terribly “U.S.-centric” my previous post was. Lemme try this again:
Europe is a lovely place full of culture and history that is, at its youngest, more than 1,000 years old. It is a bastion of civility and decorum with richly diverse peoples who are fascinating in their differences yet loveably similar. I’m particularly fond of Germany (probably because it was the only European country I spent significant time in) and love its public transit system, its technologically superior highway system and its fun-loving, fiercely loyal people.
I’ve always admired the British from afar; I’d love to know them up-close and personal. My wife’s family comes from Italy, and I have a soft spot in my heart for the sensuality of the Italians. I could learn to love the French if they just didn’t take themselves so seriously.
Fuckin’ 'ell garius that was bloody good, fancy a curry? I’m paying
I guess they’re the rare non-anti-Semitic neo-Nazis who just like wearing funny emblems. :rolleyes:
Try reading for context. If nothing in Spain’s entry in the report bothers you, I can see why bigotry remains a problem in the country.
Snap! While I agree with most of what garius has said, I disagree with the comparison with ‘Blank-American’ labelling. The latter implies one overarching principle, ‘American’, with a single modifier.
I guess what I object to is that this implies a simplistic application of ‘British’ which I don’t think is the case. Whether I describe myself as so, or as Irish or as English, depends on the context. On the purpose of the description, on who I’m speaking to, etc. I’m not always conciously making a descision of how I describe myself, either. But I never say ‘part this, part that’, because that’s not how I feel.
So good, we nearly named it twice 
In answer to the OP,
After 3 weeks in Bavaria and years of occasional contact with Europeans, and a week in Scotland for what it’s worth:
How nice. Thoroughly decent people and politics. Much cleaner than the US, far fewer angry signs and warnings posted all over, much nicer buildings.
I’ve been embarrassed about the US these last few years, and somewhat less so over some things for much longer, such as our guns and litter and religiosity.
It is really hard to tell of course, and I’ve always lived in the US, as have 13 generations of my family - but I would guess I’d have been happier being born there. That said, I’m not interested in relocating because of all my attachments here.
garius In all fairness, my generalization on Europe meant more mainland, but someone used Britain as an example, and I ran with it. I think mainland countries have more problems.
The notion that America doesn’t have a culture is probably the most retarded cliche I’ve ever heard, considering cultural hegemony is our main export, and we suffered the greatest terrorist attack in the world because of our cultural hegemony. America has a vibrant culture. The whole world loves Hollywood, Rock and Roll, Jazz, Techno, House, and many other American artforms.
Sorry, I am just sick of that cliche. If you think America doesn’t have a culture, perhaps it’s because you are culturally ignorant (of America) rather than the fact that it doesn’t have one. I will freely admit that we do suffer from our suburban culture with the lack of town squares and coffee house type intellectual centers, and yes proportionally to other first world nations we have a lot of uneducated hicks, but American culture is alive and well despite that.
Love Europe and Europeans. When I win the lottery, I’m moving there. 
That might actually be the worst time to move there. I’d rather be poor in Europe and rich in America than vice versa. YMMV…
-XT
I was referring to how the Irish perceive their own treatment by the British government. “Oppression” is a subjective term; there was plenty of unrest in Ireland as recently as the 1970s. But regardless, my point was not to dig Britain as you claim. As you said, all countries have dark parts in their history. My point was that the American system of government was designed and intended to be more open than any in Europe. Whether that itself is a good thing or not depends on your point of view. Obviously, as an American, I think it is. You don’t have to agree if you don’t wanna.
I admire the hell out of them.
They invented the modern world. They combined the moral certitude of Christianity with the pragmatism and utilitarianism of Greece/Rome and had the drive and energy to create the world in which we live today. Regardless of whether they were actually “first” with any one technology (like the printing press) or idea, the synthesis in which they combined these elements was irresistable. By 1870, the wave of industrialization made all previous living patterns irrelevent: all other civilizations had to join and/or adapt… or be rendered irrelevant. Even the Moslem peoples, the one center of civilization most resistant to modernity, have no choice but to participate in today’s world, the world the Europeans created.
Yes, their civilization had dichotomies in which it had to reconcile… so did (and does) the US. However it is looking like the two wars of last century (and the totalitarian regimes that followed in the East) have possibly “burnt out” the more aggressive edges of European civilization.
Hopefully.
Right now (if I may stereotype a bit), “they” seem relatively benign - they like their time off and care about the environment. However, they definitely are rather too preoccupied with politics… I have no doubt the average European is more knowledgable than the average American about politics. I’m also quite positive that much of this knowledge is wasted in fruitless agonizing over minutiae, rendering the American better off in the long run.
I’m rather surprised to see that this statement has gone without comment.
There are rather vociferous immigration debates currently underway that would tend to refute your position, Lizard. Are we being whooshed here?
Certainly, there are many North Americans who have the right to live - and work - in more than one of “Canada, the US, and Mexico”, but they are a distinct minority.
There’s a world of difference between a situation in which millions of people are living and working illegally (which is certainly the case in the US) - and subject to all of the restrictions implied in that status - and the free and legal transmigration of labor within the European Union.
No worries. I just wanted to clarify that Britain was a bad example to pick (whoever picked it).
Britain has its problems but is arguably the most multiculturally integrated nation in Europe, and certainly a leading force in this area in the world (despite what the sensationalist press would have you think and more so than most people realise).
I think in part this is because we got our major fix for massacring the foreigners, Catholics and Jews who lived in this country out of the way by the end of the 18th Century. I’d like to claim this was due to some kind of moral superiority but that’s patently false. Mainly it was because we were too busy massacring them abroad, planting pretty Union Jacks on their lands and introducing them to interesting concepts such as “Land Tax” and “British Corporate Monopolies.”
That’s not to say there weren’t quiet moments in our quest to find new and interesting groups of natives to oppress, but we tended to spend them doing the diplomatic equivalent of poking the French with a stick and giggling manically to see what reaction we could get, which all in all left very little time to concentrate on developing any real internal national neuroses.
Of course one of the strange consequences of Empire is that often the Imperial power becomes changed by the very people it set out to change itself - and to a large degree that’s what’s happened over the last 200 years or so in Britain. We have always been a nation of mongrels, where Roman blood mixed with Celtic and Norman mixed with Saxon, so maybe somewhere in the national psyche there’s a predisposition to it. Maybe its because when you’re a itty bitty nation of 40 million people from the bumfuck backwater end of Europe, ruling over an Empire that at its peak included over 400 million people and covered a quarter of the globe, the voices and cultures of those people you set out to dominate begin to drown out your own.
Whatever the reason, Empire changed us as much as we changed it. Its a distinctly positive legacy of Empire for us and a rather embarassing one in some ways, given that the balance of legacies for most of our ex-colonies may lie more on the negative side than the positive.
I think you’re right, mswas, in that this is not necessarily common to other areas of Europe. The French and Spanish both had, at times, equivalent global reach if not bigger, but when you compare the old powers of Europe and the influences of their territories upon them, its clear that “Britishness,” is one of the key concepts we had which they lacked. To be “French” comes with more cultural baggage and expectation than being British does. It’s far more comparible to being “English” or “Scottish,” both of which can sit alongside the British identity rather than the British identity itself.
If anything, as GorillaMan says, i’ve oversimplified Britishness as a concept (because i didn’t want to come across as the stereotypically arrogant Englishman 
), because it is - as with all our concepts of national identity in this country - an incredibly abstract thing. Try to pin it down or explain what it is and it vanishes, threaten or mock it and it strengthens. If anything i feel it’s stronger and more powerful than its American equivalent because, being so outrageously versatile and amorphous, it can potentially be far more inclusive in a modern world that is beset by new challenges and concepts that are changing the way that we think about our own identity and the identities of others.
To be honest, it wasn’t until i lived in the US for a while that i came to realise this, or realise just how strongly i could feel British (whilst still seeing myself as English), nor how insidiously effective it is. So much so in fact that when i was looking for an identity to start Blogging under over there, it seemed strangely fitting to chose that of John Bull, which i’ve stuck with ever since.
Anyway, i’ll stop hijacking now. There’s probably a thread in this but i can’t be arsed 
Moving back on topic, my experiences of Europe have been almost universally positive - i love all varieties of Scandiwegian and consider Sweden, Norway and Finland to be three of the places i could quite happily live in.
The Dutch, quite frankly, are incredibly embarassing to be around not just because they almost universally seem speak English better than we do ourselves, but also because they seem to possess stupidly large amounts of common sense about most things in life.
Finally, the French and the Germans are also generally great people, although i have found on past excursions that, just as there are still some Englishman out there who take the old rivalry a bit too seriously, there are some Frenchmen who do the same.
Not that a little bit of rivalry isn’t occasionally fun and rather satisfying (London never actually wanted the Olympics - we just knew that Paris did) of course, but there’s no need to get silly about it.