800 years

csk

I see you have failed to respond to my post, #161.

Why should I reply to the conditions you have now set on this debate. I mean if you are not going to respond to post #161, why should I draft another post just as lenghty and time consuming, if I feel its irrelevant and will neither negate or prove my point; epecially if you are just going to turn around and impose more conditions as a prerequisite to you answering?

As it stands, leaving my points outstanding appears to be you conceding the debate. Now I know you are better than that.

So I would suggest you respond to my post and give me a good reason to answer the particular questions you want answering or else it will appear to me that you are conceding the debate and I know you definitely do not want that.:)

vesp

csk wrote:

So a very successful business man, maybe a multi millionaire, with lots of property, beats seven colours of sh!t out of his wife five days of the week.

Poor analogy. Relatively few people ever supported violence between the two islands, just as very few people in Tasmania supported violence against Australia, or very few in Tenerife supported violence against Spain.

A Dub in Glasgo

ArthurF wrote:

but did you ever ask yourself what does British mean? and what are the ingredients of the British flag?

What does British actually mean anyway? A lot of people here in Britain are very confused about this. A lot of people I know in Scotland regard themselves as Scottish, not British.

The ingredients of the Union Flag

Most prominent: St George of England (incl Wales)
2nd most prominent: St Andrew of Scotland
Least prominent: St Patrick of Ireland

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What does British actually mean anyway? A lot of people here in Britain are very confused about this. A lot of people I know in Scotland regard themselves as Scottish, not British.

Being Scottish is also part of being British. People from Hawaii are not just hawaiian, they are also American. Tasmanians are also Australians. Cork people are also Irish.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The ingredients of the Union Flag

Most prominent: St George of England (incl Wales)
2nd most prominent: St Andrew of Scotland
Least prominent: St Patrick of Ireland

lol so what are you cribbing about ? Scotland etc makes up the colours on the flag. Maybe you are moping it is not a brighter shade of blue to make it more prominent ?

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

Being Scottish is also part of being British.

You fail to see that the people I am referring to do not regard themselves as British, they regard themselves as Scottish. What does 'part of being British' mean?

lol so what are you cribbing about ? Scotland etc makes up the colours on the flag. Maybe you are moping it is not a brighter shade of blue to make it more prominent ?

Again, you fail to see. I am stating fact not cribbing or moping

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You fail to see that the people I am referring to do not regard themselves as British, they regard themselves as Scottish.

They can call themselves outer mongolians for all the world cares. However, if they were born in Britain, pay their taxes to the British govt, receive benefits from the British govt, have a British passport, use British currency each and every day etc etc ...its kind of hard to see that they are also not British.
I suppose you get some people in California who would not consider themselves American. Some people from Bali who are not indonesians etc.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What does 'part of being British' mean?

see above. You should know if you are in Glasgow. Maybe you think Glasgow is not in the British jurisdiction. Ah well, keep waving the auld tricolour over there ..... some there may think its like a muslim waving their flag in New York but the British are generally a fair and tolerant people.

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

They can call themselves outer mongolians for all the world cares. However, if they were born in Britain, pay their taxes to the British govt, receive benefits from the British govt, have a British passport, use British currency each and every day etc etc ...its kind of hard to see that they are also not British.

The World = You??

You don't seem to care too much what people think of themselves anyway. If you were born in a stable, does that make you a horse?

see above. You should know if you are in Glasgow. Maybe you think Glasgow is not in the British jurisdiction.

You have not actually answered what 'being British' means. You have merely stated what British in the sense of a Government system means. Of course Glasgow is in Britain.

You seem to have a problem with people from Britain who regard themselves as Scottish, English or Welsh rather than British.

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You seem to have a problem with people from Britain who regard themselves as Scottish, English or Welsh rather than British.

No I do not, far from it. People from Bavaria often regard themselves as Bavarian. They still have a German passport, just the same as a Scottishman has a British passport and someone from Alaska has an American ( U.S. ) passport.

brianthebard

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The World = You??

You don't seem to care too much what people think of themselves anyway. If you were born in a stable, does that make you a horse?



You have not actually answered what 'being British' means. You have merely stated what British in the sense of a Government system means. Of course Glasgow is in Britain.

This is actually a very good point. I think that if one truly cares about understanding who they are then they must ask themselves this question at some point. Personally I consider myself culturally Irish, but I have no great love for the nation-state as an object of pride or a defining aspect of my personality/makeup.

There is a lot more to being British than merely being born within its borders. I know several people in Ireland that were born in the USA and even have a passport/dual citizenship, but they are not American. I commend you DinG for making a very valid point.

brianthebard

vesp wrote:

No I do not, far from it. People from Bavaria often regard themselves as Bavarian. They still have a German passport, just the same as a Scottishman has a British passport and someone from Alaska has an American ( U.S. ) passport.

Why are you using examples like Alaska and Hawai'i? Is it because they were brought into the union later than most states and to a greater or lesser extent forced into it rather than by popular support by the people living within? I think your examples lend more support to DinG's argument than your own. If a Bavarian considers himself Bavarian, they are Bavarian first and formost. Germany is a federation, so there is a tendency towards regional rather than or as well as national loyalty.

Capt'n Midnight

vesp wrote:

No I do not, far from it. People from Bavaria often regard themselves as Bavarian. They still have a German passport, just the same as a Scottishman has a British passport and someone from Alaska has an American ( U.S. ) passport.

Well the Bavarian's do speak a slightly differently language

What about the Hawaiians , they got their kingdom taken over ?
or the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Russians, that got sold to the US or got invaded by them, and the Puerto Rican's or Micronesians, not to mention the natives ?

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

If a Bavarian considers himself Bavarian, they are Bavarian first and formost. Germany is a federation, so there is a tendency towards regional rather than or as well as national loyalty.

Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American:)

vesp

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Well the Bavarian's do speak a slightly differently language

It is still german, and they are as understandable to someone from Northern Germany as anyone communicating between these islands. Good point and that reinforces the points I made.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What about the Hawaiians , they got their kingdom taken over ?
or the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Russians, that got sold to the US or got invaded by them, and the Puerto Rican's or Micronesians, not to mention the natives ?

lol what about the Hawaiians ? They are happy to be part of the U.S., just as the Aran islanders are happy to be part of Ireland, the Canary islanders are happy to be part of Spain setc. I can assure you there is no republican terrorist group seeking independence in those islands.

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

Personally I consider myself culturally Irish, but I have no great love for the nation-state as an object of pride or a defining aspect of my personality/makeup..

I also " consider myself culturally Irish, but I have no great love for the nation-state as an object of pride or a defining aspect of my personality/makeup ". However, different people would have different ideas about what is and what is not " culturally Irish ".

brianthebard wrote:

There is a lot more to being British than merely being born within its borders. I know several people in Ireland that were born in the USA and even have a passport/dual citizenship, but they are not American. .

So ? No big surprise there. There are a few hundred million people born in the U.S. You know " several people" that were born in USA - wow. They even have dual citizenship - wow...I imagine the other country is Ireland. And they presumably tell you they consider themselves Irish rather than American lol And you think this is a startling fact.

Blackjack

InFront wrote:

Yes it had become law, but none of the political machinery of Irish parliament had been made, suspended until the end of the war.

Ah yes, the war to end all wars, that was supposed to end before Christmas in1914. I suppose you would not wish to give Home Rule in case this reduced the supply of Cannon Fodder to command over the top to Glory, and get cut to ribbons by German Machine guns.

InFront wrote:

Because politics doesn't suffer from genetics.

but it does have form.

InFront wrote:

Then can you please explain, as you failed to, why it is different to IRA activities in the north up until recently?

And this is relevant to this debate why?. In my opinion, once the Republic of Ireland came into being, Ireland had gained independence. If you disagree with this, do let us know.

InFront wrote:

The Ulster-Scots were planted illegally, the act of Union was wrong, political debate was not rectifying anything, and anyway as Sinn Fein 1918 argued, and as Sinn Fein 1988 argued, it would be wrong to co-operate with an illegal imposter at Westminster.

So why was Easter Week warranted and not the IRA atrocities of later years? or what are your opinions on the IRA atrocities of later years? Are the IRA terrorists or freedom fighters?

See above. The rise of the IRA in what is considered to be the "Troubles" from the Pogroms carried out (largely considered to have begun from Bombay Street) against the Catholics in Northern Ireland, however that is a matter from a whole other thread.

InFront wrote:

What was to stop them going to Westminster to ask that question? Or more to the point: run in an election and actually win a public mandate to go to Westminster to ask that question.

You mean the one that was continually delaying Home rule, and that was not really ever going to offer full independence?.

InFront wrote:

Show me where I suggested that? The point is: what were the British doing there with gunboats in the first place? A day on the water? There were republican terrorists hijacking the city, and much to the public disapproval. Look at the headlines run by the (nationalist) Irish Independent at this time if you doubt me.

OK, your words were -

InFront wrote:

By the way the loss of civilian life compared to the loss of soldiers of the British Army, taking into account the relative numbers, isn't enormously different. It is however too high, and I can only see how the Republicans can be to blame for that.

As regards Public disapproval, that changed pretty soon after, something I'm sure you don't doubt.

InFront wrote:

Most British people couldnt give a toss about it, it was one institution, the House of Lords, which was delaying the Home Rule Bill, with limited effect.

And the House of Lords is the Upper house of Which Parliament?.

InFront wrote:

No, as most people are aware, the Black and Tans were a more heavy handed force in relation to how they dealt with terrorism here.

Heavy handed? that must be the understatement of the century. As regards with dealing with what you call Terrorism, they also dealt with Innocent Civilians in a fairly heavy handed manner, but I suppose State-sponsored Terrorism is OK.

InFront wrote:

No I justb dont believe that an unrelated government, or a people, who came one hundred years later should be expected to pay the price for that. They had nothing to do with it.

And neither do people who are around 100 years after a Corrupt union has been created have to accept it.

Anyway, I'm off for a few pints to enjoy the new year. Before I do, Happy new year to all, and all the best for 2007.

brianthebard

vesp wrote:

lol what about the Hawaiians ? They are happy to be part of the U.S., just as the Aran islanders are happy to be part of Ireland, the Canary islanders are happy to be part of Spain setc. I can assure you there is no republican terrorist group seeking independence in those islands.

The point that you are missing is that their kingdom was forcibly taken over. They are hawai'ian firstly and only American since the 1950's.

vesp wrote:

Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American:)

I suppose Basque seperatists are still Spanairds? Try telling them that.

vesp wrote:

So ? No big surprise there. There are a few hundred million people born in the U.S. You know " several people" that were born in USA - wow. They even have dual citizenship - wow...I imagine the other country is Ireland. And they presumably tell you they consider themselves Irish rather than American lol And you think this is a startling fact.

Certainly not a startling fact but it does show that just because they are born in America they are not American by default. In fact the vast majority of Americans will describe themselves as Irish-American, Italian-American, Chinese-American, Korean-American, etc, etc. Are you telling me that that hyphen doesn't make a difference?

How about Tibet? Both Tawain and the People's Republic of China lay claim to it, and it has an exiled government as well. Do you think people in Tibet all consider themselves Chinese just because they have a Chinese passport? I think you need to reconsider your point.

Also are you conceding my point on Alaska and Hawai'i as bad examples of states brought into the union?

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

The point that you are missing is that their kingdom was forcibly taken over. They are hawai'ian firstly and only American since the 1950's.

lol. Lets send out the three bird watchers ( they should be refreshed after their last escapade with the farc lads ) to help the HRA ( Hawaiian Republican Army ) so. Try telling anyone who lives in Hawaii "their kingdom was forcibly taken over. They are hawai'ian firstly and only American since the 1950's"

brianthebard wrote:

I suppose Basque seperatists are still Spanairds? Try telling them that.

Is that the best you can do ? Out of billions on the planet you find a small group of extremists and hold them up as a shining example ? I suppose if Basques applied for a passport they would not apply for a Spanish one. I am sure none of them ever use Spanish currency or avail of welfare from the Spanish state. They may live and have been born on the part of the Ibernian peninsulas which is not Portugal, but they are not Spanish, right. lol :rolleyes:

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

In fact the vast majority of Americans will describe themselves as Irish-American, Italian-American, Chinese-American, Korean-American, etc, etc. Are you telling me that that hyphen doesn't make a difference?

Nobody said that there as no such people as Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans etc.

Anyway, having been to America many times, I can assure you the "the vast majority of Americans will NOT describe themselves as Irish-American, Italian-American, Chinese-American, Korean-American, etc, etc". Many will, but there are many many many tens of millions of Americans who are well integrated and just tell you proudly they are "American". That point was made to me by a German once, when discussing past emigration from Scandanavia, Germany, Holland , Britain etc to America. He did not think much of many " Irish-americans".

To get back to the point, what I said was " if people were born in Britain, pay their taxes to the British govt, receive benefits from the British govt, have a British passport, use British currency each and every day etc etc ...its kind of hard to see that they are also not British.
I suppose you get some people in California who would not consider themselves American. Some people from Bali who are not indonesians etc."

brianthebard

What a daft reply you obviously think that the only thing that grants you a national or cultural identity is where you are born or what state you live in. I also take it that you concede the point on Tibet, since you haven't replied to it. Lol indeed.

Are you honestly telling me that a person born in the 20s or 30s in the Hawai'ian islands is American, merely because they live within American jurisdiction? Or does it only apply once a country is assimilated?

what about Canada and Australia? they are part of the British commonwealth, they swear allegience to the Queen, yet I'm pretty sure people in those countries would consider themselves Canadian or Australian respectively. Is it because Scotland is closer to the British Administration that makes them British?

Sand

Are you honestly telling me that a person born in the 20s or 30s in the Hawai'ian islands is American, merely because it is within American jurisdiction?

What else would they be? Hailing from Hawai and being America isnt impossible, indeed you might say its the norm. And whilst I havent studied the culture of Hawai I might dare say theyre little more culturally Hawaian than Irish Americans are culturally Irish.

brianthebard

Sand wrote:

What else would they be? Hailing from Hawai and being America isnt impossible, indeed you might say its the norm. And whilst I havent studied the culture of Hawai I might dare say theyre little more culturally Hawaian than Irish Americans are culturally Irish.

Well they would have been Hawai'ian until the 50s, but according to Vesp's statements once they start using the dollar they are American. I personally don't think that identity is that easily shrugged off. And if they are more culturally Hawai'ian than Irish Americans, does that not make their Hawai'ian identity more important than their American one?

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

Are you honestly telling me that a person born in the 20s or 30s in the Hawai'ian islands is American, merely because they live within American jurisdiction? Or does it only apply once a country is assimilated?

Again total rubbish. I am talking about peoples nationality, and what usually decides it is where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. When they travel abroad they usually use American passports. There is no looney independence movement in Hawaii, no Hawaii Republican Army !

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

Well they would have been Hawai'ian until the 50s, ....etc etc

lol You may as well say they were so anti-American in the early forties it was a mistake of the Japanese to bomb them ....

brianthebard

vesp wrote:

Again total rubbish. I am talking about peoples nationality, and what usually decides it is where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans. When they travel abroad they usually use American passports. There is no looney independence movement in Hawaii, no Hawaii Republican Army !

So you are changing your argument? at first you said that because Hawai'ians use American passports and are part of the Union they are American, now you are saying nationality is decided by birthplace? That would make people born in Hawai'i Hawai'ian, since America refers to the continent and the USA is a union of states, not a state or nation in its own right? do you see where you are wrong yet? Lolz./

vesp wrote:

lol You may as well say they were so anti-American in the early forties it was a mistake of the Japanese to bomb them ....

There was no suggestion that they are anti-American in my posts, merely that they are not American. The Japanese bombed Americas military bases, not the whole islands. This is that last time I shall reply to your posts on this topic, but I will ask you for the third time to reply on the topic of Tibet, unless you are conceding the point. If you are conceding then your argument is invalid. Lolz and such.

dave2pvd

Sand wrote:

I might dare say theyre little more culturally Hawaian than Irish Americans are culturally Irish.

You might be surprised! Some of the NY boroughs and the likes of Southie in Boston are rabidly 'Irish'. In a time-warped, weepy eyed, 50's kind of way.

vesp

brianthebard wrote:

So you are changing your argument? at first you said that because Hawai'ians use American passports and are part of the Union they are American, now you are saying nationality is decided by birthplace?
.

What I said was it was usually decided by where they are born or where they live. Virtually all Hawaiians are proud to be Americans.

brianthebard wrote:

There was no suggestion that they are anti-American in my posts, merely that they are not American..

Sorry to have to correct you yet again : they are very definitely American. Hawaiians are American. And proud of it.

brianthebard wrote:

The Japanese bombed Americas military bases, not the whole islands. .

Nobody ever said the Japanese bombed every building in Hawaii or all over each island.

brianthebard wrote:

This is that last time I shall reply to your posts on this topic, but I will ask you for the third time to reply on the topic of Tibet, unless you are conceding the point. If you are conceding then your argument is invalid. Lolz and such.

What has Tibet got to do with it ? My original point was " if people were born in Britain, pay their taxes to the British govt, receive benefits from the British govt, have a British passport, use British currency each and every day etc etc ...its kind of hard to see that they are also not British.
I suppose you get some people in California who would not consider themselves American. Some people from Bali who are not indonesians etc."

What has Tibet got to do with that ? They are certainly not British, I can tell you that. You can go off on a tangent talking about Tibet if you want, but I suggest you start another thread if you want to do so. As I clarified to you, " Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American". Worry about Tibet if you must. There are no bird watching expeditions to that part of the world ! And the only powder the average poor revolutionary there knows about is different to that known by those in FARC etc. Maybe Charlie Bird should go there and buy clothes for the 3 jailed priosoners there, as he has done in central America ?

Hagar

Seeing as it's New Year's Day could a mod please change the thread title to
"801 Years" ? Thank you.

brianthebard

vesp wrote:

What has Tibet got to do with that ? They are certainly not British, I can tell you that. You can go off on a tangent talking about Tibet if you want, but I suggest you start another thread if you want to do so. As I clarified to you, " Bavarians are still Germans. Sicilians are still Italians. Tasmanians are still Australians. Corkonians are still Irish. New yorkers and Californians are stll American". Worry about Tibet if you must. There are no bird watching expeditions to that part of the world ! And the only powder the average poor revolutionary there knows about is different to that known by those in FARC etc. Maybe Charlie Bird should go there and buy clothes for the 3 jailed priosoners there, as he has done in central America ?

Your argument is if you use a countries money, have x passport, etc you are british/american/etc but Tibet is a country of itself but also it is occupied by China, and use chinese currency, passports etc, but Tibetans(generally) most definitely aren't chinese. Would you have told a polish person in the 1970's that they were Russian, because the USSR controls their state? There is more to national identity than administrative structure but obviously you can't grasp that simple fact.

LordSutch

Being British is a geographical fact if you come from (the island of Britain) or in the case of people from this island identifying with Britishness or (frame of mind) and the fact that you belong to this "Family of islands" forever connected by the Blood, Family & Cultural ties of Britain & Ireland.

Many Americans claim also to be Irish, even though their only connection with Ireland might be that a great grand Mother came from Enniskillen, in which case, they might claim British ancestry?

Scots are certainly British in one context as in (born on the island of Britain) & of course they are also Scottish ~ English people are British too, but no more than Scots, unless you are refering to England & Englishness (but thats another story altogether)!

As for people from this island, you try telling a McCartney, a Trimble or a Paisley that he is not British and see what reply you get, and I suspect the answer will be that he is most certainly British as well as being Irish!

Apart from what it says on your Passport "Britishness is a frame of mind" as well as being a geographical fact.

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

Sand

One question which eludes me is "Why some Scots may dismiss being British even though, they & all their ancesters were born in BRITAIN".

I think that Europeans especially are stuck in the nation-state mentality which arose after the Treaty of Westphalia. Prior to that, states would govern over various peoples which spoke different languages, had different cultures and which were only united by their central government.

The state of Britain [In fact all European states] has juristiction over many nations, the most crude breakdown being English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish with many, many sub cultures below that as well. At one point all of Ireland was included within the state of Britain, not the nation of England - which seems to be the defining concern of the "800 years" brigade. The Scots are probably concerned that being part of the state of Britain means they are by default culturally English. Somewhat insecure, but seeing as theyre still trying to be Scottish *and* British were not in a position to criticise.

Non nation-states like the US [no official language, no official religion, etc etc] are able to project a shared sense of identity that can unify Hawians and Bostonian Irish Americans [historically people who have nothing in common] under one flag and one constitution, which imo is pretty admirable even if it is mostly an accident of history [a host of european colonies on the east coast of America, conquered by Britain, united in revolt against Britain with a constitution written with the aim of keeping everyone onside despite the fact they were culturally Dutch, German, Norwegian, Scottish, English etc etc].

Nation states like Ireland are still stuck in the mentality of official languages, religions and official cultures which cant. Hopefully that will change as immigration continues.

You might be surprised! Some of the NY boroughs and the likes of Southie in Boston are rabidly 'Irish'. In a time-warped, weepy eyed, 50's kind of way.

Well, thats an example of Irish-American culture as opposed to Irish culture. Like you said, its a very time warped, stuck in the 70s style version of "the old country". From and Irish point of view it bears as much resemblance to Irish culture [or at least my chunk of Ireland] as Grease! does to US culture.