[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

lex-man wrote:

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:11 pm wrote:

Banjo wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

The problem is that most people that care about national identity seem to be solely focused on projecting it on to others (e.g. Like your friends call you Welshie)

It's often about defining others as not part of your perceived identity as well e.g. That chap, I want to say UKIP but cant recall, who could not accept the fact Mo Farah was British. No idea why it mattered so much to him, but Mo Farah for whatever reason (and we all know what it is) just shouldn't be called British in his opinion. Oddly enough the only comparison I can think of is gay marraige. People will insist they're not homophobic, but at the same time be against gay marraige because it degenerates the institution somehow. Those people are not like us, how dare they pretend to be

And it's the perceived identity that mattters, especially when cultural idenity can change over time.

You asked every person in Britain what 'British identity' is and I bet the majority would not be what Kippers say. But that's not what Kippers will be trying to defend/re-assert.

Moggy ( I think) posted a picture of Kipper MEPs and voting records - notice anything?

Cal actually admitted it when he agreed UKIP want regressive policies. They dont want to preserve what British means to the British.

They want to rewind to what British means to them. After all Mo Farah isnt really British. Why should his opinion matter?

Sorry for string of thoughts - on the ipad

(Something that occured to me - Cal I assume you expect Mr and Mrs Farrage to divorce then? Their diluting their national identities by being married...and oh got think of the poor confused, identity muddled children )

Do you think that national identity is always a negative thing then? It seems to me that by your definition it just exists to encourage racism.

Mini E » Wed May 28, 2014 6:24 pm wrote:

Interesting views from Blair. I think he may be right on this one.

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:44 pm wrote:

lex-man wrote:

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:11 pm wrote:

Banjo wrote:Now I have to say that this idea of national identity does fascinate me (it's pretty much what my dissertation focus is) and I believe the line of thought Cal subscribes to is quite revealing. Something I've been noting over the last 9 months where I've been meeting people from all over Europe is how powerful the island mentality of the UK is. Even myself and other wishy-washy lefty bastards I know don't fully consider ourselves European (the way we even say that "we'll go travelling in Europe" is indicative of this) but just about every other person I've met does consider themselves that. But it doesn't impact on their national identity, they still just as strongly identify as being Austrian, Polish, Finnish, German, French, Bulgarian, Lithuanian etc.

In particular what I'm fascinated by is what does British national identity even mean? You can break it down further into English/Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh, and then from there you'll get people that instead subscribe to a more specific location (I know Moggy was kinda taking the piss, but Bristolian is a valid example). Is there such a thing as a definite idea of British identity that doesn't involve making lame jokes about tea or queueing? Personally I think it's a little ironic that Cal is all about preserving individual national identities (which apparently the EU want to erode) but in doing so is subjecting an island of unique identities to some broad, sweeping generalisations.

I'm referred to as "my Welsh friend" by some friends of mine. But I don't identify as that despite speaking the language and knowing a decent amount of the culture and heritage, and plenty of people have remarked that my accent is not particularly strong (it comes and goes), so I'm intrigued to know how British identity can even be a thing.

I'm not really expecting answers to this (was it even a question?) but it's a subject matter I take great interest in.

The problem is that most people that care about national identity seem to be solely focused on projecting it on to others (e.g. Like your friends call you Welshie)

It's often about defining others as not part of your perceived identity as well e.g. That chap, I want to say UKIP but cant recall, who could not accept the fact Mo Farah was British. No idea why it mattered so much to him, but Mo Farah for whatever reason (and we all know what it is) just shouldn't be called British in his opinion. Oddly enough the only comparison I can think of is gay marraige. People will insist they're not homophobic, but at the same time be against gay marraige because it degenerates the institution somehow. Those people are not like us, how dare they pretend to be

And it's the perceived identity that mattters, especially when cultural idenity can change over time.

You asked every person in Britain what 'British identity' is and I bet the majority would not be what Kippers say. But that's not what Kippers will be trying to defend/re-assert.

Moggy ( I think) posted a picture of Kipper MEPs and voting records - notice anything?

Cal actually admitted it when he agreed UKIP want regressive policies. They dont want to preserve what British means to the British.

They want to rewind to what British means to them. After all Mo Farah isnt really British. Why should his opinion matter?

Sorry for string of thoughts - on the ipad

(Something that occured to me - Cal I assume you expect Mr and Mrs Farrage to divorce then? Their diluting their national identities by being married...and oh got think of the poor confused, identity muddled children )

Do you think that national identity is always a negative thing then? It seems to me that by your definition it just exists to encourage racism.

I said most

And not at all - but at the same time I'm always wary of those that seek to define 'national identity' for a nation.

A nation is a collective of disperate people - whatever the nation or it 's size.

It's a collective of individual components and you dont get to pick the components.

'British identity' today is a sum of all those parts.

You don't define the answer or limit the ingrediants, the sum of the parts tells you the answer.

When people start defining British Identity, and then exclude the bits/parts/types/elements they dont like to mske sure they get the sum they want I get concerned.

They know they want to answer to be, and they fix the question.

If you beleive the phrase 'Mo Farah isnt British'

Thst should mean you need to change/update your definition of British to include the new elements, not that the definition of Mo Farah needs to change.

Again sorry I'm on the mobile, and got big thumbs.

mcjihge2 » Wed May 28, 2014 6:47 pm wrote:Lib dems are the scape goats for another gooseberry fool conservative government.
Labour havent got a chance of winning anything with weird Ed Milibandovich in charge.
UKIP is a diversionary tactic from real issues. They are a trojan horse to get Cameron back power in the next election.
This whole situation has been politically engineered.

mcjihge2 » Wed May 28, 2014 6:47 pm wrote:Lib dems are the scape goats for another gooseberry fool conservative government.
Labour havent got a chance of winning anything with weird Ed Milibandovich in charge.
UKIP is a diversionary tactic from real issues. They are a trojan horse to get Cameron back power in the next election.
This whole situation has been politically engineered.

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 6:02 pm wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/27/dave-small-newly-elected-ukip-councillor-suspended-after-five-days_n_5399920.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

One down

Only take over a year to get rid of them all at that rate

Lucien » Wed May 28, 2014 8:42 pm wrote:

Irene Demova » 0000 wrote:Yes, Uganda, that Christian country, is a great demonstration of the perils of "islamification"

It doesn't matter which decadent beliefs they hold. I'd no sooner want a Christian from Uganda who wants gays jailed for life in this country, than I'd want a North Korean in who wanted me to worship whoever the current fat bloke is that rules there.

Hexx » Wed May 28, 2014 5:02 pm wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/27/dave-small-newly-elected-ukip-councillor-suspended-after-five-days_n_5399920.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

One down

Only take over a year to get rid of them all at that rate

Banjo wrote:I like how this talk of identity has become a thing. It really does highlight what probably irks me most about Ukip (how is that meant to be capitalised? All of it?), that they use these broad sweeping generalisations of other countries to defend broad, sweeping generalisations of this country. It's far more insidious than simply being racist; they actively prey on the fears of the electorate by stirring up difficult issues, all without actually offering any solution/answer/explanation. It's not quite xenophobia as it is the fear of change, sure talking about Romanians next door will earn the support of the xenophobes but for others it hits on a more primal level. I remember moving house when I was 11 and being deeply upset about it; all of my friends were on that street and I didn't like this new place, things were different. That's the Ukip tactic, prey on these primal fears that some people while simultaneously appealing to the dregs of society. Calling them racist is putting it lightly, they're pretty much evil.

Banjo » Wed May 28, 2014 11:24 pm wrote:I like how this talk of identity has become a thing. It really does highlight what probably irks me most about Ukip (how is that meant to be capitalised? All of it?), that they use these broad sweeping generalisations of other countries to defend broad, sweeping generalisations of this country. It's far more insidious than simply being racist; they actively prey on the fears of the electorate by stirring up difficult issues, all without actually offering any solution/answer/explanation. It's not quite xenophobia as it is the fear of change, sure talking about Romanians next door will earn the support of the xenophobes but for others it hits on a more primal level. I remember moving house when I was 11 and being deeply upset about it; all of my friends were on that street and I didn't like this new place, things were different. That's the Ukip tactic, prey on these primal fears that some people while simultaneously appealing to the dregs of society. Calling them racist is putting it lightly, they're pretty much evil.