The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
Appeals court ruling says alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to keep their guns
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/ Advocates for domestic violence victims were stunned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which continued a string of court decisions citing the Second Amendment to erase gun restrictions… … In 2021 alone, 127 women in Texas were murdered by their male intimate partners with firearms, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. Across the country, an average of 70 women each month are killed by their partners with guns. Research has shown that a domestic violence victim’s risk of death is five times higher when their abuser has access to a gun...
Shocking . Absolutely disgusting . Wtf is wrong with the USA where common sense and something most people would agree with as in keeping guns out of the hands of violent people is ignored so that they can bang on about their frigging gun rights .
The Second Amendment is wrong in the context of the 21st century. But it's there and we can't pretend it isn't.
Who’s pretending ?
If you want to look at it that way, we also shouldn’t pretend that until the current set of ideological ghouls took their places on the court, it was interpreted in a manner which allowed at least some regulation and control of gun ownership at both the state and federal levels.
Appeals court ruling says alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to keep their guns
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/ Advocates for domestic violence victims were stunned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which continued a string of court decisions citing the Second Amendment to erase gun restrictions… … In 2021 alone, 127 women in Texas were murdered by their male intimate partners with firearms, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. Across the country, an average of 70 women each month are killed by their partners with guns. Research has shown that a domestic violence victim’s risk of death is five times higher when their abuser has access to a gun...
Shocking . Absolutely disgusting . Wtf is wrong with the USA where common sense and something most people would agree with as in keeping guns out of the hands of violent people is ignored so that they can bang on about their frigging gun rights .
The Second Amendment is wrong in the context of the 21st century. But it's there and we can't pretend it isn't.
Who’s pretending ?
If you want to look at it that way, we also shouldn’t pretend that until the current set of ideological ghouls took their places on the court, it was interpreted in a manner which allowed at least some regulation and control of gun ownership at both the state and federal levels.
It is perhaps of interest to consider that there is strict gun control in the US. For certain things.
The FFL - federal firearms license - is required to own fully automatic weapons or weapons over 0.5”. It requires background checks.
The FFL and the associated laws have resulted in automatic weapons not being used in crime in the US.
Despite what Hollywood portrays, the usage of a real machine guns in crime is about as common as rocking horse poop.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
Not my sport at all but these 6 nations games are big noisy colourful spectacles aren't they.
Indeed and fans of both sides sitting side by side. Football fans needs to think what is different.
A few years back, after a game, the Saracens team came into a bar i was drinking in. About 90% of the people in there were Harlequins fans. Saracens had just hammered Harlequins in the game that had finished moments before.
The team went round doing autographs - one lucky kid got his shirt signed by the entire team. Wonder how much a Harlequins shirt signed by Saracens team is worth on the collectors market?
When I discussed this with some football fans, they said that showed how rugby fans weren’t proper fans. Didn’t care enough, apparently.
Not my sport at all but these 6 nations games are big noisy colourful spectacles aren't they.
Indeed and fans of both sides sitting side by side. Football fans needs to think what is different.
A few years back, after a game, the Saracens team came into a bar i was drinking in. About 90% of the people in there were Harlequins fans. Saracens had just hammered Harlequins in the game that had finished moments before.
The team went round doing autographs - one lucky kid got his shirt signed by the entire team. Wonder how much a Harlequins shirt signed by Saracens team is worth on the collectors market?
When I discussed this with some football fans, they said that showed how rugby fans weren’t proper fans. Didn’t care enough, apparently.
Italy are 9/1 to beat England tomorrow. That’s VALUE
Agreed. One team aren't very good and are on the decline. The other were positively shocking, but are improving rapidly. Doubt whether we've reached crossover quite yet, especially at Twickenham. But not 9 times out of 10 certain.
Not my sport at all but these 6 nations games are big noisy colourful spectacles aren't they.
Indeed and fans of both sides sitting side by side. Football fans needs to think what is different.
A few years back, after a game, the Saracens team came into a bar i was drinking in. About 90% of the people in there were Harlequins fans. Saracens had just hammered Harlequins in the game that had finished moments before.
The team went round doing autographs - one lucky kid got his shirt signed by the entire team. Wonder how much a Harlequins shirt signed by Saracens team is worth on the collectors market?
When I discussed this with some football fans, they said that showed how rugby fans weren’t proper fans. Didn’t care enough, apparently.
AIUI Rugby League is similar.
Yes. Essentially it’s football which is the odd one out.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Not my sport at all but these 6 nations games are big noisy colourful spectacles aren't they.
Indeed and fans of both sides sitting side by side. Football fans needs to think what is different.
A few years back, after a game, the Saracens team came into a bar i was drinking in. About 90% of the people in there were Harlequins fans. Saracens had just hammered Harlequins in the game that had finished moments before.
The team went round doing autographs - one lucky kid got his shirt signed by the entire team. Wonder how much a Harlequins shirt signed by Saracens team is worth on the collectors market?
When I discussed this with some football fans, they said that showed how rugby fans weren’t proper fans. Didn’t care enough, apparently.
AIUI Rugby League is similar.
Wonder what they would make of rowing.
Last year, the club likeliest to beat us in the final broken a steering wire in their 8. I fixed it, rather neatly, because I happened to have the bag of bits in the kit on the trailer, which they hadn’t.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
I know you've denied before that Brexit was responsible for the intellectual hollowing out of the Tory Party... but it was inevitable after the referendum that whoever replaced Cameron as leader would either be brought down by the ERG (May) or end up being in hoc to the ERG (Johnson, Truss, Sunak to an extent). May's Lancaster House speech didn't help matters, but it really is difficult to see who could have replaced Cameron who was competent and could have pursued a soft version of Brexit without getting destroyed by the ERG.
The Tory party was hollowed out long before Brexit. All that did was bring the divisions to the fore. It has long been unfit for Government. Indeed the only reason Cameron got his majority in 2015 was because of Brexit - or his promises made over it.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
You can have more than one ‘nation’. So I feel English, British, Wiltshire, and even down to my cricket team level. I don’t assert that these are better than anyone else’s, but to me there is something English. Queuing, talking about the weather, ‘must grumble’ - when constantly grumbling and on and on. A Yorkshire version of English will be different from a Cornish, but is still there, underneath.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapidly improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
I speak as someone who regularly attends both football and union, and sadly I’ve seen far too much bad behaviour at football. It’s a minority for sure, but it needs eliminating from society.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Do they protest outside Christmas pantomimes, too?
Apparently drag = paedophile is the equation, judging from what some folk seem to be waving or wearing in the slogan line.
Obviously that equivalence is insane, and the protestors are mentalists.
But why *has* Tate Britain employed a drag queen for its “nursery storytime”?
Why shouldn't it? Nobody is having it "rubbed in their face" as far as I can see. Don't like it? Don't go. We took our kids to a family friendly drag show at the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago. It was a bit earnest but entirely appropriate with a rather sweet story about acceptance, and was delivered with flair. The children enjoyed it. I'm sad for kids brought up by parents who are so closed minded and afraid of anything different or new.
Yep. I think your answer is spot on. The question too often is 'Why?' to which the only reasonable response should be Why not?
One might equally ask why have an actor, a fireman, a vicar or an oil rig worker reading stores. A Drag act is just as much a part of our society as the rest of them. Indeed Drag acts have been around a lot longer than oil rig workers.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
National character isn’t about that, and no one thinks it is. But there are things which bind us. It’s a shared heritage, an understanding of history, of what it means to be from X, Y or Z. If I say Scots national character is dour (the difference between a Scot with a grievance and a ray of sunshine etc) does that mean all Scots are like this? No, of course not. But to deny any sense of national character is too strong, even if it amounts to nothing more than a shared upbringing, like siblings.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
More Lee Anderson trolling today, this time on net zero (where’s he’s out of touch with the vast majority even of 2019 Tory voters).
If Labour have their wits about them I think they can use the combination of him, Braverman and Raab to create a fear/disgust factor at the next election in the same way the Tories successfully did last time with Corbyn.
Labour need to keep reminding voters that the next election isn’t in the bag and if they don’t turn out and vote they could face 5 more years of the likes of Anderson.
My Tory member mum loves Braverman and Raab. You sure your not displaying all your biases?
Your point being? I thought we'd pretty much established that Tory party members shouldn't be allowed near sharp instruments.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
More Lee Anderson trolling today, this time on net zero (where’s he’s out of touch with the vast majority even of 2019 Tory voters).
If Labour have their wits about them I think they can use the combination of him, Braverman and Raab to create a fear/disgust factor at the next election in the same way the Tories successfully did last time with Corbyn.
Labour need to keep reminding voters that the next election isn’t in the bag and if they don’t turn out and vote they could face 5 more years of the likes of Anderson.
My Tory member mum loves Braverman and Raab. You sure your not displaying all your biases?
Your point being? I thought we'd pretty much established that Tory party members shouldn't be allowed near sharp instruments.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
No, it is because you are intellectually mediocre, yet posing as intelligent, and you believe yourself to be intelligent precisely and merely because you hold “progressive” opinions (as here). And this is true of too many people on the left. Indeed it’s a kind of hallmark. Well done
But then you are a retired accountant. So maybe I expect too much and I’m being unfair
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
National character isn’t about that, and no one thinks it is. But there are things which bind us. It’s a shared heritage, an understanding of history, of what it means to be from X, Y or Z. If I say Scots national character is dour (the difference between a Scot with a grievance and a ray of sunshine etc) does that mean all Scots are like this? No, of course not. But to deny any sense of national character is too strong, even if it amounts to nothing more than a shared upbringing, like siblings.
There's culture and the actual physical landscape and how things are organised (politics) - all of these can be meaningfully mapped at nation level. But not anything to with character or aptitude or personality.
Good example there with that Wodehouse line. It's elegant, funny and ... utter bollocks.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
Sustaining this view must require you on occasion to adopt an attitude towards statistics that might be considered a comforting delusion.
Appeals court ruling says alleged domestic abusers have a constitutional right to keep their guns
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/ Advocates for domestic violence victims were stunned by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which continued a string of court decisions citing the Second Amendment to erase gun restrictions… … In 2021 alone, 127 women in Texas were murdered by their male intimate partners with firearms, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. Across the country, an average of 70 women each month are killed by their partners with guns. Research has shown that a domestic violence victim’s risk of death is five times higher when their abuser has access to a gun...
Shocking . Absolutely disgusting . Wtf is wrong with the USA where common sense and something most people would agree with as in keeping guns out of the hands of violent people is ignored so that they can bang on about their frigging gun rights .
The Second Amendment is wrong in the context of the 21st century. But it's there and we can't pretend it isn't.
Then they need to modify it to stop violent people owning guns . Oh how lucky we are to live in a civilized country where people care more about the lives of others than owning a gun.
Trying to think what our equivalent is. Something massively damaging but so ingrained in centuries of British tradition that nobody dare change or ban it, or even tighten regulations.
Any candidates I can think of: alcohol, smoking, driving, boxing, hunting, waste disposal etc. have all been progressively regulated to reduce harm.
As the Spectator pointed out, very wisely, it is the NHS
Whilst I agree that the NHS is too difficult to properly look and reform in serious ways, I also agree with the premise of the question being about something ingrained for centuries of tradition and culture means it does not apply.
I have no idea whether the NHS is irreformable, but in this case the facts and the trick is simple, if required.
It is universally acknowledged that in the UK there has to be health care for all access to which is not based on ability to pay at the point of contact. This is a mixture of national wealth, culture and civilization.
Rule (1) keep calling it the NHS Rule (2) run it any way you like that actually works as long as you keep the name and principle.
The staff, for whose benefit is sometimes feels to exist, care about details. The tax paying general public know nothing and care less about the logistics. They just want it to work.
This doesn't work with guns.
My rule (3) would be: agree what % of GDP is spent on health and social care. Give a Quango the money and tell them to spend it. Abolish 90% of the Dept of Health.
The way that staff are employed in the NHS is incredibly out of date.
It doesn’t really work for
1) the staff 2) the NHS 3) the government 4) those awkward, complaining idiots. The patients, that is.
Could you elaborate on how the staff are employed and why it's a problem? I've read various things about GP contracts and people leaving to be rehired as 'contractors' - but not something wider (unless that's what you meant).
The whole thing - the pay, the conditions, the way “shifts” are organised. It’s all very 1950s - in one hospital I saw an actual bloke with a clipboard doing time/motion counts on the doctors in A&E.
The idiocy of screwing this up and the hiring the same staff back in on “agency” to do the work…
It’s not as if predicting the amount of staff required is *that* hard.
@Foxy can explain better than I can - but we need to employee NHS frontline staff according to the best practices of the 21st cent. Not the worst of the late 19th.
Ah - ta. Yeah - the general 'it's all a bit of a mess' thing is a problem in many areas. The NHS is probably one of the more public of them. I imagine you could find similar things in the DVLA, benefits offices, refuse collections, whatever. I've worked a fair few private sector places which have been almost as bad mind you - usually places where there's enough money sloshing about from a cash-cow or two to let the bad practices just carry on.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
No, it is because you are intellectually mediocre, yet posing as intelligent, and you believe yourself to be intelligent precisely and merely because you hold “progressive” opinions (as here). And this is true of too many people on the left. Indeed it’s a kind of hallmark. Well done
But then you are a retired accountant. So maybe I expect too much and I’m being unfair
Back to the rugger
Ok back to the obnoxious post you make challenging someone's intelligence when they make sensible posts that you seem not to be able to deal with. I suggest there is an element of looking into a mirror when you do this. Unnecessary as well as you make entertaining post even if we do rib you about them sometimes.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Do they protest outside Christmas pantomimes, too?
Apparently drag = paedophile is the equation, judging from what some folk seem to be waving or wearing in the slogan line.
Obviously that equivalence is insane, and the protestors are mentalists.
But why *has* Tate Britain employed a drag queen for its “nursery storytime”?
Why shouldn't it? Nobody is having it "rubbed in their face" as far as I can see. Don't like it? Don't go. We took our kids to a family friendly drag show at the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago. It was a bit earnest but entirely appropriate with a rather sweet story about acceptance, and was delivered with flair. The children enjoyed it. I'm sad for kids brought up by parents who are so closed minded and afraid of anything different or new.
Yep. I think your answer is spot on. The question too often is 'Why?' to which the only reasonable response should be Why not?
One might equally ask why have an actor, a fireman, a vicar or an oil rig worker reading stores. A Drag act is just as much a part of our society as the rest of them. Indeed Drag acts have been around a lot longer than oil rig workers.
This is where the two parallel topics of drag artists and national character come together nicely.
Britain has a great tradition of highly camp drag that has pervaded our light entertainment industry since time immemorial.
A classic British drag artist should look talk like a female Coronation Street character and clown around as a more filthy mouthed version of Widow Twanky. While nevertheless looking oddly attractive. Children of every generation for at least a century here have been brought up familiar with drag in a way most US of European kids won’t have been.
My son is an avid fan of Rupaul’s drag race but it all seems a bit serious and earnest to me. A bit American. Rupaul himself is of course a consummate pro with very good comic timing, but the contestants often take themselves rather seriously.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
Thats in your head, feel free to be offended if you want. I think you will find tribes existed worldwide in history.
More Lee Anderson trolling today, this time on net zero (where’s he’s out of touch with the vast majority even of 2019 Tory voters).
If Labour have their wits about them I think they can use the combination of him, Braverman and Raab to create a fear/disgust factor at the next election in the same way the Tories successfully did last time with Corbyn.
Labour need to keep reminding voters that the next election isn’t in the bag and if they don’t turn out and vote they could face 5 more years of the likes of Anderson.
My Tory member mum loves Braverman and Raab. You sure your not displaying all your biases?
Your point being? I thought we'd pretty much established that Tory party members shouldn't be allowed near sharp instruments.
My point being a much better one than Arsenal got today 😈
Romford Stew replied far far better than you to the same post, sort of saying: I agree Rabbit, such populism as everything from Braverman needs to be articulately picked apart, just waving angry fists at it achieves absolutely nothing at all.
Do we think Opinium still do opinion polling, or too busy now trying to get a Labour MP elected?
I expected it two weeks ago when I predicted 29% nc for the Tories. I expected it last week when I predicted 28% for the Tories. I’m beyond expecting one but if they worked on a survey the last few days I expect Tories on 29%.
It feels like a while since I snipped and posted a polling graph, I might do one later unless there’s a howl saying don’t bother.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I don't know why, we see examples of it every single day in most places on earth by people choosing to associate themselves with a national identity.
Yes, it's all artificial, we are all the same underneath, but if people believe they have an identity as being French, Laotian, or whatever, on top of any other identities they might also have (ethnic or religious for example), it is still real. That's why complaints about 'made up' countries are bogus, since they are all made up, yet still very real to people.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
Sustaining this view must require you on occasion to adopt an attitude towards statistics that might be considered a comforting delusion.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Ability to speak German?
I think I’m with the others on this. There are overlaps, but nations have their own means and these can be defined as national character.
UK vs Italy for example: fashion sense, ability to cook, average space between two people having a conversation. Finland vs USA: frequency of smiling, social extroversion. Japan vs Netherlands: directness and frankness in conversation. Etc
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
Thats in your head, feel free to be offended if you want. I think you will find tribes existed worldwide in history.
I'm astonished someone has apparently never come across the descriptive use of tribal before, it's also used all the time in politics.
I don't think any reasonable person wouls assosciate the world tribal solely with allegedly primitive african tribes, given its frequent use to describe any group and their reaction to another. Why should people not use such a generically used term because an individual chooses to racialise it?
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
I highly recommend Grayson Perry's Full English, 3 episodes on C4 catch up. Really quite thoughtful on the subject of being English.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
This is why everyone hates the Left
That we puncture comforting delusions? Yes, I know. Which is why I don't make a big deal of stuff like this. I know people like to assign characteristics to 'nations' and 'peoples' - talk about what 'the Italians' are like, how such and such a country is 'brave' or 'two faced', how this 'people' here are 'lazy' whereas this other 'people' over there are 'enterprising' etc etc - they like to do that and get pissed off with someone constantly pointing out it's all nonsense. That's understandable. It's very human. As am I. So I only do it occasionally.
No, it is because you are intellectually mediocre, yet posing as intelligent, and you believe yourself to be intelligent precisely and merely because you hold “progressive” opinions (as here). And this is true of too many people on the left. Indeed it’s a kind of hallmark. Well done
But then you are a retired accountant. So maybe I expect too much and I’m being unfair
Back to the rugger
Yes, the 'rugger' ... you do that.
I'm out too.
Tbc later maybe but thinking cap please. And a bit of courage and curiosity. I note you rarely venture outside your comfort zone.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
What does even matter given the fact that people clearly do perceive national identity to be real, and act accordingly, even if it is true that they shouldn't think there is such a big difference? It's true, identities are essentially just stereotypes and there will be a big range within a nation, and more in common with people in the other than plenty in their own nation. They still believe in it.
It's not an argument against national identity being a thing, it's an argument it shouldn't be a thing, and that it is all a bit silly. But humanity is pretty silly - isn't all culture and identity used to seperate people out invented?
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Understanding of irony. Self deprecation. Sarcasm
Sorry I gave you three instead of one. There are many more.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
Thats in your head, feel free to be offended if you want. I think you will find tribes existed worldwide in history.
I'm astonished someone has apparently never come across the descriptive use of tribal before, it's also used all the time in politics.
I don't think any reasonable person wouls assosciate the world tribal solely with allegedly primitive african tribes, given its frequent use to describe any group and their reaction to another. Why should people not use such a generically used term because an individual chooses to racialise it?
Good pun with "generically" :-)
OK, that's flippant. Agree with you on the main point.
I think turbotubbs might be amused by my reaction to a cartoon in an old Charles Addams collection ("My Crowd").
The cartoon shows a line (or as you might say, a queue) waiting for a bank teller. The fourth in line is a man, wearing a mask, holding a gun in one hand, and a small satchel in the other. He is waiting, patiently, for his turn.
And my reaction? How British.
(The collection has some cartoons which I don't think would be published by the modern New Yorker. Unfortunately.)
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Ability to speak German?
I think I’m with the others on this. There are overlaps, but nations have their own means and these can be defined as national character.
UK vs Italy for example: fashion sense, ability to cook, average space between two people having a conversation. Finland vs USA: frequency of smiling, social extroversion. Japan vs Netherlands: directness and frankness in conversation. Etc
Apart from the language!
The other examples, ok, some characteristics there that when grossed up maybe show a difference between countries.
But still isn't the spread of (eg) cooking prowess here much greater than that between the average English and Italian citizen?
And is this sort of thing really enough to support what we so often hear and read about 'national character'?
I think saying it doesn't exist is closer to the truth than saying it's a big and real thing.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
No, I just believe that any of the likely alternatives are going to give yet more power to the parties over the MPs and delay the real necessary evolution in democracy which is a massive curtailing of party power entirely.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I don't know why, we see examples of it every single day in most places on earth by people choosing to associate themselves with a national identity.
Yes, it's all artificial, we are all the same underneath, but if people believe they have an identity as being French, Laotian, or whatever, on top of any other identities they might also have (ethnic or religious for example), it is still real. That's why complaints about 'made up' countries are bogus, since they are all made up, yet still very real to people.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
No, I just believe that any of the likely alternatives are going to give yet more power to the parties over the MPs and delay the real necessary evolution in democracy which is a massive curtailing of party power entirely.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
At GE 2019, 57% of voters did NOT back the Tories, yet the latter were rewarded with an 80-seat majority!
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
No, I just believe that any of the likely alternatives are going to give yet more power to the parties over the MPs and delay the real necessary evolution in democracy which is a massive curtailing of party power entirely.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
At GE 2019, 57% of voters did NOT back the Tories, yet the latter were rewarded with an 80-seat majority!
So we should have an AV system. I am not wedded to the FPTP in spite of what Ian might think. I just think that any likely PR alternative is worse.
Good morning. This is my first post so please be gentle. I wonder, apropos of the debate about a possible Labour majority, whether this would be a better result for the Tories in the long term than NOM. If, after large poll leads and a truly dreadful Government, the Labour Party cannot win a majority at the next GE, might they not conclude, egged on by the LDs and Greens, that PR is the way to go? If that happens what price the Conservatives then?
Welcome.
And yes. The Tories would also benefit from being forced to reflect on just how badly they threw away a golden opportunity - indeed, a series of golden opportunities - to genuinely change this country for the better and leave things, amazingly, in a worse state than in 2010.
I would suggest that, given the world events outside of their control, it was always likely that the Tories would leave the country in a worse state than they found it. I suspect there are few European countries that would consider they are currently in a better position than they were in 2010.
The remarkable point is just how much worse the Tories will be leaving it. More importantly, from their point of view, how much worse they will be leaving the state of their own party.
The first curious thing is that we've had four premierships since 2010; five if you count Coalition Dave and Majority Dave as different. That's odd in itself.
But what's really odd is how much each new PM has run against the record of their predecessor. May told Osborne to go away and kept Gove out for a time. Johnson blew up everything May wanted to achieve. Truss ran against fiscal orthodoxy. Sunak was appointed to clear up Truss's mess.
No wonder so little has actually got done.
Basically it is time people realised that the Tory party is not fit for purpose. You could say pretty much the same for the Labour party given their internal stresses as well. Neither party in its forward facing persona represents more than a small minority of the electorate.
Yet you are a fervent supporter of the voting system that ossifies and entrenches our two-party system and makes difficult any challenge to it.
No, I just believe that any of the likely alternatives are going to give yet more power to the parties over the MPs and delay the real necessary evolution in democracy which is a massive curtailing of party power entirely.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
At GE 2019, 57% of voters did NOT back the Tories, yet the latter were rewarded with an 80-seat majority!
Worked for Blair too - huge majorities of seats, not in actual votes. But that’s the system we have, and that we kept when given a choice. It tends to polarise votes to give a stable government at the expense of not being that representative of the overall vote nor the influence of minor parties.
The country has been unstable under the Tories. At least under Labour we had a consistent government with consistent views
Under Gordon Brown who "saved the World". He broke the Bank of England.. almost....
Gordon Brown never tanked the Pound on purpose.
You could argue that his handling of the financial crisis was the only decent thing he did, and you could also argue it was such an important thing that it out made up for all his deficiencies.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
I do feel a national identity and I'm not saying the nation state isn't a decent way to organize many things. But the notion of a nation having 'characteristics' other than landscape, culture and politics, is what I don't buy at all. But people often talk as if they do. Eg the one mentioned here, Scots are dour! I mean, c'mon. It's all just banteraid, isn't it. But sometimes it gets darker than that.
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
Greeks and Romans were divided literally, into tribes,
Only England can stop Ireland winning the Six Nations, the assumption being that Borthwick will get rapid improvement with his feet properly under the desk.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
Lovely little racist euphemism you got there, mate. and do you really think "they sometimes don't beat each other and each other's children up" passes some sort of test?
Racism eh, fuck me, are you sure you are responding to the right post?
Tribal comes across to me as Like those African fellows who go about chucking spears at each other.
Thats in your head, feel free to be offended if you want. I think you will find tribes existed worldwide in history.
I'm astonished someone has apparently never come across the descriptive use of tribal before, it's also used all the time in politics.
I don't think any reasonable person wouls assosciate the world tribal solely with allegedly primitive african tribes, given its frequent use to describe any group and their reaction to another. Why should people not use such a generically used term because an individual chooses to racialise it?
Good pun with "generically" :-)
OK, that's flippant. Agree with you on the main point.
Yebbut context innit? Tribal is clearly a euphemism for physically violent.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
The country has been unstable under the Tories. At least under Labour we had a consistent government with consistent views
Under Gordon Brown who "saved the World". He broke the Bank of England.. almost....
Gordon Brown never tanked the Pound on purpose.
You could argue that his handling of the financial crisis was the only decent thing he did, and you could also argue it was such an important thing that it out made up for all his deficiencies.
Good luck with the second of those 2 propositions 😆
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Understanding of irony. Self deprecation. Sarcasm
Sorry I gave you three instead of one. There are many more.
The Germans I know are level pegging with the English on all that lot. With exceptions, but not more exceptions than the English.
The country has been unstable under the Tories. At least under Labour we had a consistent government with consistent views
Under Gordon Brown who "saved the World". He broke the Bank of England.. almost....
Gordon Brown never tanked the Pound on purpose.
You could argue that his handling of the financial crisis was the only decent thing he did, and you could also argue it was such an important thing that it out made up for all his deficiencies.
Good luck with the second of those 2 propositions 😆
It's quite a widely held view, I blieve. Try, for example, Barack Obama's autobiogtaphy for a calm and rational view of the mayhem and chaos of those dangerous days.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
I do feel a national identity and I'm not saying the nation state isn't a decent way to organize many things. But the notion of a nation having 'characteristics' other than landscape, culture and politics, is what I don't buy at all. But people often talk as if they do. Eg the one mentioned here, Scots are dour! I mean, c'mon. It's all just banteraid, isn't it. But sometimes it gets darker than that.
Yes. Within culture there are certain types of attitude and behaviour that one associates with one country or another. Throw in language and weather and you've got it covered. Although language can be a distraction - apart from speaking the same language, Brits and Americans have more cultural differences than Brits and Swedes, I've always thought. Scots and Swedes for sure.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I don't think I agree with you, at least not completely. A nation is like a family. You don't choose your family, you might love them or hate them, you might much prefer the company of your friends and have way more in common with them, but you still have a history and a kinship with your family that you can't deny or ignore. Sometimes a family becomes toxic and unhealthy, and sometimes nationhood can be twisted too, but in the main it is simply a natural and healthy way for people to organise themselves, just like families are.
If someone belongs to an exploited class and has been exploited all their life - which accounts for a majority of the population - why should they buy into the idea of commonality with the local members of the ruling class? They're not friends. Those on opposite sides of the divide don't treat each other as equals or give a damn about each other or invite the other into their home. Karl Marx was right: the working class have no country. Class hatred is especially strong in Britain - flowing downward in society, not upward. Screw country - it's just a brand. That said, of course culture affects personality. To my taste, some places have much sh*ttier cultures than others. Can't see any good in denying I feel that way.
Almost no one in the “Exploited Class” thinks like that. Nationalism always trumps class.
I suppose if you represent a country where 48% of wealth is owned by the top 1% then all that stuff about exploited class makes sense.
EDIT: before anyone reads too much into the low UK number, that’s largely a product of our high property prices.
It is. If Brexit is having a child, this is "we need to investigate daycare, if not a boarding school." So who leaked it and why?
(C'mon. Gove and Mandelson were there. Someone has leaked this news to The Observer for a reason.)
Would be a shame if the leaking prevented these sorts of discussions happening again.
It would be nice to think some of our leaders had the kind of sense of responsibility that would make such a meeting possibility. If it is true, I am pleasantly surprised.
The other addiction that holds this country back is nostalgia. Left or right, choose your poison, but myths about the sixties or ww2 make us fat and lazy. We are quite content to rest on the laurels of others.
I don't think nostalgia is a peculiarly British problem, but anecdotally it does feel as though we have little sense of what positively want, and so are very conservsative and seek to just revisit old battles and policies, with only tokenistic tweaks otherwise even as we shy away from anything dramatic.
Nostalgia is clearly not unique to Britain, but we are drunk on it. It’s everywhere. Brexit was an exercise in nostalgia. Scottish independence is an exercise in nostalgia. Corbyn was an exercise in nostalgia.
You don’t travel much, do you?
Every single serious nation on earth is, by its nature, an exercise in nostalgia
Because it says: We are these people, who live here in this particular place, as we have done for X years, and we do these things, as we have done for generations, and this makes us different to the people next door
That IS a nation. It is nostalgia turned into politics. How else do you define it?
Any every serious nation is absolutely soaked in this stuff. UK, America, China, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Italy, Thailand, Holland, Mexico - even newer nations like Canada and Oz and South Africa. They are all “drunken exercises in nostalgia”
Perhaps we'd be better off with only silly nations.
In all seriousness I don't think so. A sense of shared identity at a more local level than 'all humanity' may be necessary to mobilise groups to achieve great things. Yes it can often be misused, but that's the peril of identity for you.
I'm very skeptical of there being such a thing as a national character or identity.
I tend to disagree. It won’t be for everyone but there is a group identity. Overlaid on that is your own character. For some people, perhaps like your good self, that overwhelms everything else, so you don’t understand what being English, or Scottish, or Danish means to some. A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
But a 'nation' is such a large and diverse entity. The differences between individuals within it absolutely dwarf those between its population as a whole and those of other nations. So I don't think it has much meaning to talk about national identity or character. I think it's mainly just a technique to communicate seductive falsehoods. Often harmless but sometimes not.
I have to say that whilst I often agree with you on many things, on this you are, in my opinion, wrong.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
Let's test this -
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Understanding of irony. Self deprecation. Sarcasm
Sorry I gave you three instead of one. There are many more.
You mean Jeremy was right and there is an English sense of irony?
Comments
If you want to look at it that way, we also shouldn’t pretend that until the current set of ideological ghouls took their places on the court, it was interpreted in a manner which allowed at least some regulation and control of gun ownership at both the state and federal levels.
The FFL - federal firearms license - is required to own fully automatic weapons or weapons over 0.5”. It requires background checks.
The FFL and the associated laws have resulted in automatic weapons not being used in crime in the US.
Despite what Hollywood portrays, the usage of a real machine guns in crime is about as common as rocking horse poop.
This is despite people still owning machine guns.
A bit like me, as a 100% straight male cannot understand how a man can be attracted to another man, but I accept that is no the case for all men.
The team went round doing autographs - one lucky kid got his shirt signed by the entire team. Wonder how much a Harlequins shirt signed by Saracens team is worth on the collectors market?
When I discussed this with some football fans, they said that showed how rugby fans weren’t proper fans. Didn’t care enough, apparently.
Last year, the club likeliest to beat us in the final broken a steering wire in their 8. I fixed it, rather neatly, because I happened to have the bag of bits in the kit on the trailer, which they hadn’t.
So they made the final. And beat us.
Despite it being no.1 & 2 in the world, Ireland were clear winners in that game, never mind thew scorecard.
As for the downthread slagging of football fans, yes it is tribal, properly tribal but I have been to club and international games and whilst away fans have their allocated section I've seen plenty of mixing in and outside of the stands without any shit.
I don’t assert that these are better than anyone else’s, but to me there is something English. Queuing, talking about the weather, ‘must grumble’ - when constantly grumbling and on and on.
A Yorkshire version of English will be different from a Cornish, but is still there, underneath.
Having spent much of my life working and living overseas, I am certain that the differences - cultural, social and philosophical - between the peoples of different nations are, with some exceptions, far greater than those between the individuals of a nation. History, society and language all shape the outlook of a nation far more than I think you can understand.
I do not see this as a problem. Nor do I believe that our culture, history and society is 'better' in any significant way than those of other countries. But it seems daft to deny those differences, especially when that denial inevitably leads to a lack of understanding of those cultural differences.
One might equally ask why have an actor, a fireman, a vicar or an oil rig worker reading stores. A Drag act is just as much a part of our society as the rest of them. Indeed Drag acts have been around a lot longer than oil rig workers.
But then you are a retired accountant. So maybe I
expect too much and I’m being unfair
Back to the rugger
Good example there with that Wodehouse line. It's elegant, funny and ... utter bollocks.
Give me one human characteristic where the difference between the mean of it in the population of England and the mean of it in the population of (say) Germany isn't far less than the high/low spread of it in both of England or Germany alone.
Britain has a great tradition of highly camp drag that has pervaded our light entertainment industry since time immemorial.
A classic British drag artist should look talk like a female Coronation Street character and clown around as a more filthy mouthed version of Widow Twanky. While nevertheless looking oddly attractive. Children of every generation for at least a century here have been brought up familiar with drag in a way most US of European kids won’t have been.
My son is an avid fan of Rupaul’s drag race but it all seems a bit serious and earnest to me. A bit American. Rupaul himself is of course a consummate pro with very good comic timing, but the contestants often take themselves rather seriously.
Romford Stew replied far far better than you to the same post, sort of saying: I agree Rabbit, such populism as everything from Braverman needs to be articulately picked apart, just waving angry fists at it achieves absolutely nothing at all.
I expected it two weeks ago when I predicted 29% nc for the Tories. I expected it last week when I predicted 28% for the Tories. I’m beyond expecting one but if they worked on a survey the last few days I expect Tories on 29%.
It feels like a while since I snipped and posted a polling graph, I might do one later unless there’s a howl saying don’t bother.
Yes, it's all artificial, we are all the same underneath, but if people believe they have an identity as being French, Laotian, or whatever, on top of any other identities they might also have (ethnic or religious for example), it is still real. That's why complaints about 'made up' countries are bogus, since they are all made up, yet still very real to people.
I think I’m with the others on this. There are overlaps, but nations have their own means and these can be defined as national character.
UK vs Italy for example: fashion sense, ability to cook, average space between two people having a conversation. Finland vs USA: frequency of smiling, social extroversion. Japan vs Netherlands: directness and frankness in conversation. Etc
https://twitter.com/harryenfield6/status/1624355662850392065?s=46&t=9PDxb0zzr01WbScCXdEm8Q
One of the greatest.
I don't think any reasonable person wouls assosciate the world tribal solely with allegedly primitive african tribes, given its frequent use to describe any group and their reaction to another. Why should people not use such a generically used term because an individual chooses to racialise it?
I'm out too.
Tbc later maybe but thinking cap please. And a bit of courage and curiosity. I note you rarely venture outside your comfort zone.
It's not an argument against national identity being a thing, it's an argument it shouldn't be a thing, and that it is all a bit silly. But humanity is pretty silly - isn't all culture and identity used to seperate people out invented?
Self deprecation.
Sarcasm
Sorry I gave you three instead of one. There are many more.
OK, that's flippant. Agree with you on the main point.
The cartoon shows a line (or as you might say, a queue) waiting for a bank teller. The fourth in line is a man, wearing a mask, holding a gun in one hand, and a small satchel in the other. He is waiting, patiently, for his turn.
And my reaction? How British.
(The collection has some cartoons which I don't think would be published by the modern New Yorker. Unfortunately.)
The other examples, ok, some characteristics there that when grossed up maybe show a difference between countries.
But still isn't the spread of (eg) cooking prowess here much greater than that between the average English and Italian citizen?
And is this sort of thing really enough to support what we so often hear and read about 'national character'?
I think saying it doesn't exist is closer to the truth than saying it's a big and real thing.
I was in favour and voted for AV. But I suspect that when we get around to voting for a PR system, the party hierarchies will make sure what we are choosing is one which gives more power to the parties (even if it allows a few more of them into Parliament) rather than less.
If you want real political reform then limit the powers of the whips. Make most votes free votes. That would be real and meaningful democratic reform.
Whoa. This seems like quite a big deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/revealed-secret-cross-party-summit-held-to-confront-failings-of-brexit
(C'mon. Gove and Mandelson were there. Someone has leaked this news to The Observer for a reason.)
EDIT: before anyone reads too much into the low UK number, that’s largely a product of our high property prices.
New Thread
(Of course, the trouble with Bruno's gift of precognition is that he got blamed for the things he predicted... Project Fear, so to speak.)