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 beAnd 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.