in reply to
Consideration for obscenity
...a study conducted in England in 2000...
That study for the BBC was conducted in Aberdeen, Manchester, South Wales, Surrey, West London and Kent. Should we be offended on behalf of the Scots and Welsh, who I am sure would be scandalised to learn that they live in England?
|
Re: Consideration for obscenity
by jonadab (Parson) on Feb 04, 2007 at 10:08 UTC |
Should we be offended on behalf of the Scots and Welsh, who I am sure would be scandalised to learn that they live in England?
They may also be interested to know that Santa Claus is not real.
Of course they live in England. Scotland and Wales are provinces
in England, and have been throughout all of modern history and
for that matter a large part of the middle ages.
Yes, when the English took control of Wales and Scottland and, later,
other places, they invented new names for their nation so as to
soothe the newly conquered provinces, but fundamentally, whatever it's
called on paper, it's still the same country -- it's still England.
Whatever semantic games were played, it still boiled down to the
English being in charge and the Scots and Welsh being subject to them.
Yes, the English government
has since changed over from a true monarchy to, in practice, a
republic, so the Scots and Welsh are fully represented in the
English government now. In light of that, I'd wouldn't consider
them to be subject peoples now, but full citizens, just as
much English as someone from Canterbury.
| [reply] |
|
jonadab said:
Of course they live in England. Scotland and Wales are provinces in England, and have been throughout all of modern history and for that matter a large part of the middle ages.
Yes, when the English took control of Wales and Scottland and, later, other places, they invented new names for their nation so as to soothe the newly conquered provinces, but fundamentally, whatever it's called on paper, it's still the same country -- it's still England. Whatever semantic games were played, it still boiled down to the English being in charge and the Scots and Welsh being subject to them.
<end quote>
I really cannot let this pass; you're over simplifying things in one of my pet subjects! :)
1) There is a very significant difference between 'the English being in charge' and 'it's ... still the same country. For example, I think no one would argue that Iraq was part of the United States during the time that the US was directly in control of the country, right?
2) Wales is more complex, but Scotland was unequivocably not an English province. Scotland was a self-governing, independent country (if often coerced into yielding to England on many issues) with its own monarch until the Scottish King James VI inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I. Even then England and Scotland mantained separate parliaments until the Acts of Union about 100 years later (the very early 1700s, I think). The Acts of Union was not an assimilation of Scotland into England, but the creation of a new entity "Great Britain".
3) Despite the power of the British Empire, it was a network of sovereign states, not of provinces - although, again, Britain had a great deal of power/influence in each country under its dominion... they were, however, still distinct countries. Consider, again, the power wielded by the United States, the influence it has over many other sovereign nations, but one cannot with truth say they are all part of the United States....
4) Wales, as I said, is more complex, and was certainly *treated* as a province after Edward I. Gwynedd (spelling?) was conquered in the late 13th century, but Wales was not officially annexed by England until Henry VII's reign.
This annexation gave Welsh citizens (theoretical) equality under English law and (hurrah!) elminated the 'Marcher Lords' (the roles, not the individuals); it also, oddly enough, defined the borders of Wales...
I will try to clean up this post later today - we're taking our menagerie of little people to the zoo now!
Eliana
| [reply] |
|
I am aware that I was simplifying, but not that it was one of your pet subjects. In light of that, I'm not prepared to argue it at any great length, although I do have a couple of minor points...
There is a very significant difference between 'the English being in charge' and 'it's ... still the same country'. For example, I think no one would argue that Iraq was part of the United States during the time that the US was directly in control of the country, right?
That's arguable, but the US was not, and did not ever intend to be, in
direct control as such for any significant amount of time, but only to
effect a change of government. Indeed, even the strongest proponents of
what we're doing there look forward to completing the task so that we
can leave the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people[1].
Compare to the situation in Panama in 1989. The question of who de facto
runs the effective government of a nation is typically complicated like
this in times of transition. Who was the government of China in 1947?
Even in hindsight this is hard to answer simply. England is entirely
a different case, with centuries of actual control, with open borders
and free movement within, numerous wars being fought together, widespread
intermarriage, and so on and so forth. Rather than Iraq and the US,
it's more reasonable to compare to Manchuria and China.
Wales is more complex
Interesting. I would have said Scotland was more complex, what with
having had its own royal line that intermingled with the English one
at various times and actually ruled all England on a couple of occasions
before finally merging altogether.
Despite the power of the British Empire, it was a network of sovereign states, not of provinces - although, again, Britain had a great deal of power/influence in each country under its dominion...
This is totally inconsistent with the way England consistently viewed the
matter until at least the nineteenth century, after a number of
successful revolutions had divested it of much of its former power.
Previously, if any of the colonies asserted local sovereignty,
the government of England considered it a civil rebellion to
be quashed, and an internal matter, *not* a foreign relations issue.
Furthermore, the colonies themselves viewed it as a revolution against
the overseas government, *not* a foreign relations issue.
Consider, again, the power wielded by the United States, the influence it has over many other sovereign nations, but one cannot with truth say they are all part of the United States...
Both the US and the other nations involved consider this a matter of foreign
relations. Unless you're talking about Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, and so on, which are American territories with varying degrees of local
autonomy, comparable to pre-2000 Hong Kong. And if Puerto Rico applied
for statehood, I wouldn't forsee a problem; they certainly meet the
population requirements. (They don't apply, because it wouldn't be to
their advantage. They'd gain representation but lose several other
advantages they currently enjoy. They're more likely to seek independence
at some point, but that too would have disadvantages, not least a reduced
ability to rely absolutely on American military protection.)
Wales, as I said, is more complex
I would have said Wales was the simpler case, more straightforwardly
a province of England. If my use of the word "province" trips you
up, substitute the word "state" or the phrase "political subdivision".
More likely, it is my use of the word "England" that trips you up.
When I say "England" I don't mean the province, but the country
as a whole, which is officially called something along the lines of
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but
that takes entirely too long to say so we just say "England".
This is the primary meaning of the word "England" throughout pretty
much the entire western hemisphere and much of the rest of the world.
We also used the word "Russia" to refer to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics until it disolved, and the word
"America"[2], means the United States
of America. Sometimes we also use the abbreviations US and UK as
synonyms, but those don't have good adjectival forms, so attributives
and indications of national origin always come out along the lines
of "English" or "American". Thus, Wales is an English province
(or an English state, or whatever) in
approximately the same way that Hawaii is an American state.
| [reply] |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
May I respectfully suggest that you go stand amongst Scottish supporters at a rugby or football match and start chanting loudly for England? The following few days in hospital "lively discussions" might realign your attitude on this subject.
And just in case you're tempted to reply "Who cares what the Scots themselves think", I'll paraphrase your own words in this node and say "This issue isn't about what you personally consider the definition of England, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that.".
Update: marto rightly admonished me for portraying Scottish football fans as hooligans, which from personal experience I also know is overwhelmingly not true, I was attempting to be facetious here. While I wouldn't want to guarantee the complete physical safety of an England supporter in a Scottish fan-block (rivalry between the two fan-groups is rather fierce and does lead to violence occasionally, and there are twats in every sport supporter group) he would more likely than not get off with a good-natured ribbing.marto++
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
I know many Scotland (football) fans, I am 100% sure that none of them would attack someone for being in the Scotland 'end' and cheering for England. Scotland fans, aka the Tartan Army, seem to know that the team do not have a chance of winning any competition. It seems to me the fanatical devotion the supports have is for the fun of the national team taking part, and for the fans travelling to far off lands, drinking, singing silly songs and to return home. I am pretty sure that Scotland fans have earned a good reputation for their behaviour both in the UK and around the world. This is not to say that some 'playful banter' would be out of the equation between an England supporter and a Scotland supporter at a match.
Most major cities in Scotland have two (or more) football teams. Each seems to have an 'old rival'. Matches played between these teams have been known to resort in trouble between fans during and/or after the match. I believe this is also the case in England, though I have never been to an English football match.
There are people who use this as an excuse for violence (organised fights with other such minded people who claim to support a rival team). IMHO these people are not sports fans, but violence fans. If we had no sports such as Football/rugby would they start fights over which chess grandmaster would win a game? :P
Update: Post tirwhan update :D
To further confuse issues there is obviously cross over, since a large percentage of Scotland supporters will support a league team also. I am sure that there will be a number of these fans who support a league team and their national team who shout abuse (or worse) at fans who support a rival local team. I can't understand this mentality, or the mentality of someone who follows a team (league or otherwise) so I can not offer any more insight into that. Perhaps they are of the opinion that since the national team have a better chance of having a hit record than they do of wining anything then it is not worth bothering about. On the other hand, for some of these teams religion has a place in their origins. As we know people don't really need an excuse to start fighting with each other :D
<joke>If anyone says that Topalov is better than Kramnik there will be trouble</joke>
If I have used the wrong sporting terms in this post I apologise.
Martin
| [reply] |
|
I avoid sporting events. I consider all sports fanatics, of any nationality, to be dangerously insane. I'd be more willing to go to a Scottish university and discuss the question with the history professors.
| [reply] |
|
|
