Which English Nation Is Superior?

[Nglund]

Cato came up with a brilliant idea last time:


As I've said before, the superior breed of English is to be found in the English Americans. So, it should be a question of "Which English nation is superior," with the winner going on to duel with Spain.

So I say we start a new thread which will hopefully wreak havoc within our cosy family of nations :D:D!

By the way, don't take this thread too seriously, let's keep it epic and thrilling ;).


http://cnrsociety.org/cnrs400-logo.jpg

:whistle::D:D...

[poiuytrewq0987]

Definitely Australia. They were convicts who turned Australia into a gem of Oceania.

[Mordid]

I vote England because of fish and chip. :rolleyes2:

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

Mercia!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I' m not sure what's that.

[Aces High]

England.

From this tiny isle we set out and conquered two thirds of the worlds surface and the seven seas.....not bad eh.:thumb001:

(and thats only because space travel wasnt invented or the universe would have been ours too)

[Bridie]

Definitely Australia. They were convicts who turned Australia into a gem of Oceania.:D

You're only saying that because you know that the most beautiful women in the world live here....



http://www.aboriginalartnews.com.au/photos/womens_law_image1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/marcie_turner_petyarre_photo_s1_1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/narpula_scobie_napurrula_photo_s1_1.jpg


Why are men always thinking with their ding-a-lings???? :rolleyes:

[Hess]

:D

You're only saying that because you know that the most beautiful women in the world live here....



http://www.aboriginalartnews.com.au/photos/womens_law_image1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/marcie_turner_petyarre_photo_s1_1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/narpula_scobie_napurrula_photo_s1_1.jpg


Why are men always thinking with their ding-a-lings???? :rolleyes:

not to mention yourself, as you look quite stunning in your avatar pic :amour101:

[Mordid]

:D

You're only saying that because you know that the most beautiful women in the world live here....



http://www.aboriginalartnews.com.au/photos/womens_law_image1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/marcie_turner_petyarre_photo_s1_1.jpg

http://www.aboriginalartstore.com.au/photos/artists/narpula_scobie_napurrula_photo_s1_1.jpg


Why are men always thinking with their ding-a-lings???? :rolleyes:

:love:
Gotta go to Australia.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2727657389_959dcf8cbb.jpg

[Mordid]

Mercia!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I' m not sure what's that.

https://static.flashback.org/img/smilies2/whoco5.gif

[Grumpy Cat]

It's a toss-up between Britain (particularly England and Scotland) and the US here. Both were pinnacles of innovation.

EDIT: I got rep comments with people being surprised I didn't vote for Canada. The thing is, all the things that make Canada a great country come from the French-speakers, not English. The English here are pretty much riding off a gravy train that the French built.

[Bloodeagle]

Well, the rest of us owe England a bit of gratitude, for shipping us off to a better place and giving us an opportunity to carve up new lands. :p

[Efim45]

America is by far better than present-day England.

[Mordid]

America is by far better than present-day England.

f****** Americunt. :tsk:

[Aelred]

Mercia is Tolkien's Shire. We're all Hobbits.

[_______]

oh yeah! england is winning! :D

[Treffie]

Wales, of course. :D

Even though I resent us being called an English nation. :spit:

[Joe McCarthy]

It's impossible to vote for anyone over England. An island the size of Oregon that dominated the world and whose legacy still dominates today. On the other hand, despite all odds English settlers, primarily Puritans, turned a savage wilderness into the envy of the world, but we had bountiful land to work with. For what it's worth, H.P. Lovecraft, a man of Puritan stock, placed the English slightly above Anglo-Americans on the racial pyramid. I"ll not vote and say too close to call.

[Aelred]

Wales, of course. :D

Even though I resent us being called an English nation. :spit:

Even Pembrokeshire? :D

[Aelred]

Even Pembrokeshire? :D

Esgusodwch fi, Sir Benfro Saesneg.

[Treffie]

Even Pembrokeshire? :D

Tis a land where people have two heads :D


Joe
It's impossible to vote for anyone over England. An island the size of Oregon that dominated the world and whose legacy still dominates today.

You're confusing England with Britain

[Aelred]

Tis a land where people have two heads :D


:cool: Ah, then I fit in - Anglia Transwalliana here I come!

[Joe McCarthy]

You're confusing England with Britain

Yes, though I'm speaking in rough terms. I think it's fair to say though that England harnessed the island behind the empire even if you folks helped as well.

[Wyn]

There is but one English nation.

[Osweo]

There is but one English nation.

And Beornie is its prophet.

[Joe McCarthy]

There is but one English nation.

And that is Spain.

[Bridie]

There is but one English nation.True enough.

You may even be able to stretch things and identify Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand as British by way of being members of the Commonwealth of Nations. (But then you'd have to include other such members also like India, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica etc etc.) You may even, if you want a good kicking from some quarters, refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as British. But what's the story with Ireland and the US? :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

Modern day Britain is a wreck and a shadow of its former self, and overrun with political correctness, immigrants, chavs, degenerates, and seems to be in terminal decline with little hope of recovery. Maybe if Scotland leaves the Union, England can recover.

I may be getting biased reports since most South Africans I talk to are Boers/Afrikaners, but they all blame the English for being liberal and allowing for power to be handed over to the ANC. At any rate, this Anglo South Africa/Rhodesia appears to be gone for good, with only the hope of a possible Boer/Afrikaner independent homeland there, so they don't get a vote either.

Australia & New Zealand are the best off overall of any country in the world, only Switzerland can compete.

Canada & the US are comparatively in a strong position compared to most European countries, though with some problems (political correctness and increasing third world immigration in Canada, large third worlder population and stagnant economy in US) but any attempt to apportion blame here between English/British derived population and the non- English/British derived population will run into lots of debate.

Ireland, despite the bust of the property bubble, doesn't have all the political correctness and societal problems of Britain, and not too many third worlders there either.

Even the Chinese dominated former British colonies, Hong Kong and Singapore, are financial centers, so we can truly say English created the best system of governance.

[Bridie]

Maybe if Scotland leaves the Union, England can recover.:confused:



Australia & New Zealand are the best off overall of any country in the world, only Switzerland can compete. Our days are numbered. Its only a matter of time before China owns Australia.



Ireland, despite the bust of the property bubble, doesn't have all the political correctness and societal problems of Britain, and not too many third worlders there either.I think perhaps, its been a while since you've been there....

[Joe McCarthy]

I can't speak to today's South Africa but historically the British were more liberal racially than the Boers - even attempting to impose blacks on them in the legal system. This created friction between the two camps and Boer flight. Imo the Boers and Ulster Unionists are the healthiest whites in the world in terms of racial thinking.

[Bridie]

I can't speak to today's South Africa but historically the British were more liberal racially than the Boers - even attempting to impose blacks on them in the legal system.
What exactly do you mean by "racially liberal"? Failing to impose apartheid-like policies? Such policies were never needed in the British Empire.



This created friction between the two camps and Boer flight. Quite clever of the British.



Imo the Boers and Ulster Unionists are the healthiest whites in the world in terms of racial thinking.
You mean the most delusional. They do themselves no favours.

[Joe McCarthy]

What exactly do you mean by "racially liberal"? Failing to impose apartheid-like policies? Such policies were never needed in the British Empire.



I think it is clear what I mean, and the British Empire was white supremacy organized on a grand scale. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Bridie]

I think it is clear what I mean, and the British Empire was white supremacy organized on a grand scale. Let's not kid ourselves.So the British were white supremacist racial liberals? :D Oh yes, its crystal clear what you mean by that. :D

In any case, the British were NOT white supremacists. The were elitist, but it was NOT based on race, rather it was determined by socio-economic status. I think your perspective is confused by issues that were rather unique to the foundation of the USA.

Within the British Empire, not only were foreign natives subjugated and used, but native British and Irish (already subjugated) were used also, often in a very inhumane manner, to further the interests of the Empire.

[Loki]

England and Australia.

[Joe McCarthy]

So the British were white supremacist racial liberals? :D Oh yes, its crystal clear what you mean by that. :D

That isn't what I said. I said they were more racially liberal than the Boers, but then so were the Spanish who also set up a racial caste system in the New World. I'll simply ask you this: did feelings of racial supremacy not pervade the British Empire in relation to their non-white subjects and were not these subjects on an unequal legal footing? Bear in mind that even Niall Ferguson, a rare defender of British imperialism among academics, acknowledges these realities.

[poiuytrewq0987]

In regard to economic opportunities I would say:

(the higher a country is ranked the better)

1. United States of America
2. Australia and Canada
3. England
4. New Zealand
5. Scotland and Wales
6. Ireland

In regard to culture:

1. British Isles and Ireland
2. Oceania Isles
3. Canada
4. United States of America

South Africa is not English, not sure why it was put up there.

[Loki]

South Africa is not English, not sure why it was put up there.

It is. It was part of the British Empire for a long time, and around 35% of white South Africans are of sole British ancestry - and even the Afrikaners have a significant amount of British blood.

[poiuytrewq0987]

It is. It was part of the British Empire for a long time, and around 35% of white South Africans are of sole British ancestry - and even the Afrikaners have a significant amount of British blood.

Hm, perhaps so. I never saw South Africa as a primarily British country despite its previous colonial status. I always considered Afrikaners to be distinct from English because I have an image of them being the result of a fusion of Dutch and English which created an unique group that is neither British nor Dutch.

[Bridie]

That isn't what I said. I said they were more racially liberal than the Boers, but then so were the Spanish who also set up a racial caste system in the New World. I'll simply ask you this:
Funny how you want me to answer your questions when you refused to answer mine, ;) nonetheless...



did feelings of racial supremacy not pervade the British Empire in relation to their non-white subjects I'm going to answer this as simply as possible: The British Empire was not built on the back of racial supremacism. The motivation had always been financial, not racial. Feelings of racial supremacy were not all-pervasive and would have been irrelevant even if they were since the British objective of financial gain knew no such obstacles as race or ethnicity. It could first appear that way, since the socio-economic status held by foreign natives was obviously going to be very low and their expendability unchallenged. Same applied to other "expendables" within the Empire though, like convicts, political prisoners, orphans, the homeless etc. You'll note that the latter listed were "white", yet strangely enough, were often treated even more poorly than foreign natives (certainly within Australia) who were not "white".

We could say that feelings of socio-economic supremacy pervaded the British Empire and provided a justification for cruelty and injustice.



and were not these subjects on an unequal legal footing?Everybody (according to their socio-economic status) in Britain and within the British Empire was on unequal footing! I'm sorry but if you think that the British legal system was fair and unbiased across the board, you'd better think again.



Bear in mind that even Niall Ferguson, a rare defender of British imperialism among academics, acknowledges these realities.Nevermind about Niall Ferguson... Mary Bryant is here. :wink :p

British colonialism is just a hobby for Ferguson, something to read about, analyse and get paid to "discuss"; whereas for me, its my personal history and has shaped my entire life.

[Bridie]

In regard to economic opportunities I would say:

(the higher a country is ranked the better)

1. United States of America
2. Australia and Canada
3. England
4. New Zealand
5. Scotland and Wales
6. Ireland
Australia should definitely be ranked higher than the US in terms of economic opportunities at the present time.

[Aelred]

That is something that should be clarified about South African culture - the mainstream are British descendants, and then the Afrikaaners are in the backcountry (and often have French Huguenot blood as well.) So the European culture there isn't a hybrid, but two distinct cultures: British and Afrikaaner. Of course, I agree with Lloyd George that the war on the Boer was unnecessary and evil.

England has long made victims of the English. It was just this year that the (oh so unsurprising study) suggested that wealth and privilege was still concentrated amongst those who came with the Conquest (Normans, Flemish, Bretons) and not the Anglo-Saxons or Celts. And one should remember how many of us were removed for being Loyal to the King and the Church of England. We didn't go across the oceans for financial gain or 'White supremacy', but because some English didn't like English.

[Bridie]

It was just this year that the (oh so unsurprising study) suggested that wealth and privilege was still concentrated amongst those who came with the Conquest (Normans, Flemish, Bretons) and not the Anglo-Saxons or Celts.Could you point me in the direction of this study? Sounds interesting. :)

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm unsure why you seem to see racial supremacy and a desire for financial gain as mutually exclusive, Mary. One was used to justify the other, including in the US with chattel slavery, Moreover, that other whites were subordinated is no evidence that 'racism' wasn't part of the narrative. In the US white indentured servants, often Irish, were regarded poorly, sometimes lower than blacks, but no reasonable person will deny that we had a white supremacist system. The British had a paternalistic feeling of superiority over India, for example, and thought it their task to lift up these primitives to the heights of civilization. What is that if not white supremacy as its often been defined?

[Aelred]

Could you point me in the direction of this study? Sounds interesting. :)

I read it in the Telegraph a few months ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8424904/People-with-Norman-names-wealthier-than-other-Britons.html

I suppose I should post this as a new thread?

[Bridie]

I'm unsure why you seem to see racial supremacy and a desire for financial gain as mutually exclusive, Mary. One was used to justify the other, including in the US with chattel slavery, Moreover, that other whites were subordinated is no evidence that 'racism' wasn't part of the narrative. In the US white indentured servants, often Irish, were regarded poorly, sometimes lower than blacks, but no reasonable person will deny that we had a white supremacist system. The British had a paternalistic feeling of superiority over India, for example, and thought it their task to lift up these primitives to the heights of civilization. What is that if not white supremacy as its often been defined?FUCK. I just lost my entire (long-winded) post. I'll have to answer this again later.

[Peyrol]

England and USA, of course.

[Amapola]

It is good to see that display of English patriotism over their achievements, empire, etc. It is boring to see only Spaniards do it (or others that never achieved that much like English or Spaniards :D). Nice to see there is still English blood flowing in English veins and not always "water". :P

[Cato]

USA, of course.

Corrected, and so noted.

[Aelred]

Back to the OP - it would surely come down to either Mercia or Wessex. :D

[Comte Arnau]

I can't see Malta in the poll. :(

[Aelred]

I can't see Malta in the poll. :(

English Nation, not Commonwealth territory. :D

[Comte Arnau]

English Nation, not Commonwealth territory. :D

Then the only option for me is England.

[Wyn]

English Nation, not Commonwealth territory. :D

If Ireland and the USA (in particular) are to be considered 'English nations' then Malta should be. Of course, none of these (or any of the poll options aside from England) actually are English nations and the OP - thankfully ;) - stated from the get-go that the thread was not entirely serious.

[Aelred]

Well, the US is an English Nation - just under attack from immigrant populations that would like to see that history disappear. But the old order they established was definitely English - especially in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas. Ireland is most definitely English (Pan-Celticist Anglophobia aside) - inside the Pale since it began. We cannot forget that Ireland has had its own English languages as well. That would be Yola and Fingalian besides Hiberno-English (which I do *not* speak, but which Americans and English alike seem to think that I do.)

[Wyn]

Well, the US is an English Nation

No, it is not. There is one English nation.


- just under attack from immigrant populations that would like to see that history disappear. But the old order they established was definitely English - especially in Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.

To speak of the 'old order' in such-and-such state does not justify calling the US an 'English nation.' As much as some Americans of English ancestry might wish it to be, it isn't.


Ireland is most definitely English

No.


(Pan-Celticist Anglophobia aside) - inside the Pale since it began. We cannot forget that Ireland has had its own English languages as well. That would be Yola and Fingalian besides Hiberno-English (which I do *not* speak, but which Americans and English alike seem to think that I do.)

I don't really even know where to begin with this.

The territory of/inside the Pale was under the control of the English for many years, but this does not make Ireland an English nation. The English who settled in Ireland were known to quickly immerse themselves into Irish culture (language, customs etc.) - something that caused great consternation among the authorities back in England. The Statutes of Kilkenny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Kilkenny) were passed in an attempt to curb this trend, but nonetheless English authority outside of the Pale tended to be weak.

As for Yola and Fingalian - both of these languages are dead, and to my knowledge, there is no evidence that their speakers in modern history considered themselves English. Though they only constituted a small number of speakers in their recorded histories anyway, so it wouldn't matter if they did.

So there is no reason to claim that Ireland is an 'English nation,' because it is not, and the Pale, Yola, historical English/British control etc. will not change the ethnicity and nationhood of the Irish people and make them an English nation.

The fact that you happily apply the very term 'English nation' to so many places that are obviously not English only demonstrates what little respect you actually have for the English nation.

[El Palleter]

Gibraltar!

They enjoy a quality of life in the sun with the profits of the deposits from British tax evaders and the whitewashing of criminals' money, that's superior to the miserable life of the English in Britain under a sky that pisses on them day and night.

Never mind that they are a mix of Jews, Moors, Northern Italians, Maltese and English.

[Lorene]

Malvinas :D

[Aelred]

No, it is not. There is one English nation.

The fact that you happily apply the very term 'English nation' to so many places that are obviously not English only demonstrates what little respect you actually have for the English nation.

No, I'm simply a realist - and know that there is a reason why the majority language is English in Ireland, as well as the US. And why other languages have to be bolstered up by artificial means (either by expensive educational or migration programmes.)

It demonstrates what great respect I have for the English nations - as things are still very different in North and South, and no one hates them for it. I believe in true diversity, not the MultiKult. I also know from experience that East Anglia is still different from Wessex, Kent, Mercia, and Northumberland ... or even the very English parts of South Wales or Scotland. Nationhood implies descent from a common ancestor. Differences in the various English nations depend largely upon whether they were mostly Angle, Saxon, Jute, Dane, Norse, or whatever else. Now that's being respectful.

[Wyn]

No, I'm simply a realist

You might like to think so.


- and know that there is a reason why the majority language is English in Ireland,

The state of Irish was very badly damaged by the deaths/emigration brought about by the Great Famine. Nonetheless, their nationhood and ethnicity is not English.


as well as the US. And why other languages have to be bolstered up by artificial means (either by expensive educational or migration programmes.)

Historical English settlement/dominance, yes.


I also know from experience that East Anglia is still different from Wessex, Kent, Mercia, and Northumberland ... or even the very English parts of South Wales or Scotland.

There is a great deal of diversity within the English nation, yes. Absolutely.


Nationhood implies descent from a common ancestor.

And the English, Irish, and Americans all descend from a common ancestor? This gets better and better.


Differences in the various English nations

There is one English nation. Those of long-lost English ancestry in places like the US are not part of it. Nor are the Irish.


depend largely upon whether they were mostly Angle, Saxon, Jute, Dane, Norse, or whatever else.

So the English all descend from one of these tribes, the Irish another, and the Americans another? Is this what you're saying? Or are you saying that East Anglia is one nation, and that Northumberland is another nation? I really hope it isn't either, because they are equally ludicrous, but I can't see what else you could mean.


Now that's being respectful.

You can believe so if you wish.

Still, as I've said before, witnessing American attempts to co-opt 'English' and related terms like 'Anglo-Saxon' has allowed me to understand how Spaniards feel when they come across Mexicans, Bolivans etc. describing themselves as 'Hispanic.'

[Aelred]

Wyn - The English dominance and settlement of the American colonies is not merely historical. It is also a present fact. That they are under attack from the same sort of liberal forces that are Anglophobic does not lessen that fact. And yes - in the most American parts of the US that remain, they still have deep kinship with England (some descended from Hengist and Horsa, etc.) Same with every other place in the Empire. They didn't surrender their Englishness when they left to serve in the Royal Navy, as soldiers, as merchants or for the government.

As for Ireland (and I have lived in Dublin) - it is not so Celtic. I have had native Irish complain to me that things would be better if they were still in the Commonwealth, that they are indeed English culture and language, that the Celtic thing is a political 'put on', and that they would even rather be considered Scandinavians by blood and culture than 'European'. Politically it didn't work out that way because they were chasing wealth.

The English don't have a single common ancestor - yet, Americans do share the same common ancestors with various English nations with the ONE English realm. When the English nations were united in one realm, that didn't make one 'nation' but one kingdom. Which is why I'm a Little Englander - but also pro-Empire (I just don't believe we should have ever let the new subjects come into Great Britain.) If I held to your argument, then I would have to say the same about so many living within the 'historical boundaries of England' with 'long-lost English ancestry' in such very non-English places like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Stoke, or even Brighton. How long do you think before they drop the Ing from Inglestan?

But in spite of all temptations,
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman! :thumbs up

[Wyn]

Wyn - The English dominance and settlement of the American colonies is not merely historical. It is also a present fact. That they are under attack from the same sort of liberal forces that are Anglophobic does not lessen that fact. And yes - in the most American parts of the US that remain, they still have deep kinship with England (some descended from Hengist and Horsa, etc.) Same with every other place in the Empire. They didn't surrender their Englishness when they left to serve in the Royal Navy, as soldiers, as merchants or for the government.

I still don't think you understand - there is one English nation. Those feeling kinship with the English, and those descended from the English, in the United States, do not turn the United States into an English nation.



As for Ireland (and I have lived in Dublin)

Nice. I too have lived in Ireland, though only briefly.


- it is not so Celtic.

The Irish - overall - see themselves as a Celtic people. This is well-known and something I've encountered in the real world.


I have had native Irish complain to me that things would be better if they were still in the Commonwealth, that they are indeed English culture and language, that the Celtic thing is a political 'put on', and that they would even rather be considered Scandinavians by blood and culture than 'European'.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you, but I myself, among all the Irish I've known (both those living in Ireland and those residing in Britain), have NEVER encountered this. Ever.


The English don't have a single common ancestor - yet, Americans do share the same common ancestors

Some Americans, you mean.


with various English nations with the ONE English realm. When the English nations were united in one realm, that didn't make one 'nation' but one kingdom.

No. There was an English nation long before England was politically unified. Don't forget that Bede talks of the English people as nostrae nationis, "our nation," despite acknowledging the tribal distinctions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in his own text. Likewise, throughout the tenth, eleventh etc. centuries there are continuous references to the 'English people.' The English as a single ethnic group associated with England are a historical reality. Sorry to burst your bubble. :shrug:


If I held to your argument, then I would have to say the same about so many living within the 'historical boundaries of England' with 'long-lost English ancestry' in such very non-English places like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Stoke, or even Brighton. How long do you think before they drop the Ing from Inglestan?

You couldn't possibly be holding to my argument because you don't appear to understand it, but London, Birmingham, and Manchester are part of England. Let's not be intellectually dishonest.

[Aelred]

My concern isn't the United States. I'm only stuck here for economic reasons. But I know folks back home in Dorset don't disagree with me.

Though one point on the Venerable (but often wrong) Bede ... when he wrote of 'his' people, he meant Latin speaking churchmen. Its a mistake to treat his personal prejudices as objective reality or even history.

[Joe McCarthy]

Anglo-Saxon has been in use in America since colonial days and has continued on to this day to describe those of English descent. There is nothing untoward about its use unless one assumes we necessarily changed ancestry after breaking free from Great Britain. It's no different than Americans of Irish, German, or Italian descent identifying to various degrees with their ancestral homelands, and in fact Americans of English descent are no doubt the least 'guilty' of this as we've been here the longest, are consequently the most assimilated, and the most patriotic. Very few Anglo-Americans have any loyalty, ethnic or political, to England or Britain, unlike, say, Americans of Irish descent. I would hope the Little Englanders would keep this in mind, the irony being that this reality does England no good at all.

[Wyn]

Though one point on the Venerable (but often wrong) Bede ... when he wrote of 'his' people, he meant Latin speaking churchmen.

St Bede, in the preface to his Ecclesiastical History of the English people, says the following:


Praeterea omnes, ad quos haec eadem historia peruenire potuerit nostrae nationis, legentes siue audientes, suppliciter precor, ut pro meis infirmitatibus et mentis et corporis apud supernam clementiam saepius interuenire meminerint; et in suis quique prouinciis hanc mihi suae remunerationis uicem rependant, ut, qui de singulis prouinciis siue locis sublimioribus, quae memoratu digna atque incolis grata credideram, diligenter adnotare curaui, apud omnes fructum piae intercessionis inueniam.
Moreover, I beseech all men who shall hear or read this history of our nation, that for my manifold infirmities both of mind and body, they will offer up frequent supplications to the throne of Grace. And I further pray, that in recompense for the labour wherewith I have recorded in the several countries and cities those events which were most worthy of note, and most grateful to the ears of their inhabitants, I may for my reward have the benefit of their pious prayers.

When he speaks of 'our nation,' in the preface to his religious history of the 'English people,' he is not referring to Latin churchmen.

Though even if this reference didn't exist, how do you reconcile the continuous usage of the term 'English' in an ethnic context throughout the tenth-twelfth centuries with your bizarre theory?

To effectively claim that there was never a unified English nation associated purely with England is ridiculously anachronistic.


Its a mistake to treat his personal prejudices as objective reality or even history.

You'd do well to bear this in mind.

[Aelred]

Though even if this reference didn't exist, how do you reconcile the continuous usage of the term 'English' in an ethnic context throughout the tenth-twelfth centuries with your bizarre theory?

To effectively claim that there was never a unified English nation associated purely with England is ridiculously anachronistic.


Unified English kingdom since my ancestor St. Alfred the Great. But the reality is that in the ethnic context we've always had the north-south divide, and continuity of counties and ethnic identities due to the Old Kingdoms. By your logic, the act of union would also make the Scots, Welsh, Irish and French part of the "one nation". I can understand the sentiment (just as I can understand Joe McCarthy's sentiment, though my experience with the more Anglo-Saxon South and Western parts of his Federation shows often a more Anglo-Saxon emphasis, more Protestant even, without the Puritan identity.) Maybe its a reaction against Mercian nationalism? ;-) I certainly know English folk (some in Da Engliscan Gesiðas) who have a different view - especially to those Anglo-Normans, and sometimes against British (Welsh, Scots.) Then again, I know 'One Nation' Tories - is that what you're espousing here?

[Osweo]

Aelred, you're just spouting poorly connected trivia, while not getting at the point of things. Now and then, I feel like jumping in to comment on certain matters you raise, but the sheer mass of oddly jumbled together subjects and ideas puts me off. I will just say that sitting on the other side of an ocean reading books on ancient history does NOT make you an authority on English or British affairs. Talking of Mercia in the same breath as 2011 realia is just bizarre.

[Wyn]

Unified English kingdom since my ancestor St. Alfred the Great. But the reality is that in the ethnic context we've always had the north-south divide, and continuity of counties and ethnic identities due to the Old Kingdoms.

The term 'English,' denoting a single ethnic group, has been in use since those aforementioned centuries. The North-South divide is not a divide of two separate nations in the mind of the English people. County-association is not national distinction. The very phrase 'England the nation' is recorded in the prologue to the Cursor Mundi (c. 1300).

The English have seen, and do see themselves as one nation and one ethnic group. Many of us embrace regional identities - I surely do, and Os (for example) certainly does. We still see ourselves as members of the English nation, and not as men from separate nations/ethnic groups. And we come from opposite ends of the country. ;)


By your logic,

Here we go again...


the act of union would also make the Scots, Welsh, Irish and French part of the "one nation".

It most certainly would not. You're not following my logic, as much as you think you are.


Maybe its a reaction against Mercian nationalism? ;-)

Mercian nationalism does not exist in the real world. I'm sure you know this. I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say that I've never met a person from the historic Mercian territory describing himself as 'Mercian' offline. And I've only met two or three online...


Then again, I know 'One Nation' Tories - is that what you're espousing here?

I don't know what a 'One Nation Tory' is, but I can assure you that I'm an English nationalist.

[Aelred]

It most certainly would not. You're not following my logic, as much as you think you are.

Same to you. Never said I was a Mercian Nationalist. I'm UKIP if anything. I'm just disagreeing with the inconsistent view of nationhood, and the prejudice against those who leave the borders for whatever reason.

[Aelred]

Aelred, you're just spouting poorly connected trivia, while not getting at the point of things. Now and then, I feel like jumping in to comment on certain matters you raise, but the sheer mass of oddly jumbled together subjects and ideas puts me off. I will just say that sitting on the other side of an ocean reading books on ancient history does NOT make you an authority on English or British affairs. Talking of Mercia in the same breath as 2011 realia is just bizarre.

Osweo, I apologize if that is the impression given. But it isn't me sitting on the other side of the ocean reading books. I went to school in Wales. I work in the US. I'm often back in the UK - usually in Dorset, Somerset, London or Kent. I'm not saying I'm an authority on British afairs. But saying "Talking of Mercia in the same breath as 2011 realia is just bizarre." is a little strange. We have our Mercian Regiment now, the West Mercia Constabulary, and other uses of the term. I'm guessing a little of this is backlash for Wulfhere's conception of Mercian? I didn't know what you were referring to with that until I googled it. Certainly not what I meant.

[Wyn]

Same to you. Never said I was a Mercian Nationalist. I'm UKIP if anything. I'm just disagreeing with the inconsistent view of nationhood, and the prejudice against those who leave the borders for whatever reason.

I don't believe you're a Mercian nationalist. I never even implied that. I said that so-called 'Mercian nationalism' doesn't exist in the real world. And it don't. :thumbs up

Secondly, my view of nationhood is not 'inconsistent.' I have said that America and Ireland are not 'English nations,' that references to the English in an ethnic context go back beyond a millenia, and that North-South/county distinctions do not amount to ethnic or national distinctions. You have consistently ignored the fact that the term 'English' has been used in an ethnic context for all these centuries and that 'England the nation' as a phrase was recorded over 700 years ago.

[Aelred]

You have consistently ignored the fact that the term 'English' has been used in an ethnic context for all these centuries and that 'England the nation' as a phrase was recorded over 700 years ago.

Now who is reading books? :D There are also regional identities, even if so small and tentative. Or you wouldn't have Colin Bex running under the Wessex Regional Party. 125 quid down the drain, sure. But there's folk who think of "The Nation of Wessex", "the Nation of Mercia". I know one bloke in Folkestone that demands he is more a Man of Kent than English.

Now - I'm concerned where you been that you don't know what a One Nation Tory is? Its right in the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 general election.

[Wyn]

Now who is reading books? :D

Sorry...why are you saying this to me? Os made the 'reading books' comment. Nice way of avoiding a very pertinent point though. ;)


There are also regional identities,

Yes, I said this...


Or you wouldn't have Colin Bex running under the Wessex Regional Party. 125 quid down the drain, sure.

'Sure' is right.


But there's folk who think of "The Nation of Wessex", "the Nation of Mercia".

Aye, loads of 'em.


I know one bloke in Folkestone that demands he is more a Man of Kent than English.

You want to introduce him to those Irishmen who feel nostalgic about the Commonwealth, call themselves English, claim that their Celticity is a façade and that they'd sooner be Scandinavians than 'Europeans.' What cracking conversations these people would have. ;)


Now - I'm concerned where you been that you don't know what a One Nation Tory is? Its right in the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 general election.

I must have misplaced my copy. :D

[Peasant]

Same to you. Never said I was a Mercian Nationalist. I'm UKIP if anything. I'm just disagreeing with the inconsistent view of nationhood, and the prejudice against those who leave the borders for whatever reason.

And your calling people Tories? :laugh2:


Oh, and regional identies are never thought of as seperate to the English nation/people. Apart from Cornwall, I guess. But Cornwall is a bit different.

[Aelred]

And your calling people Tories? :laugh2:

Well, yes I am. I still call myself a Tory. Just not a One Nation Tory. I'm a Euroskeptic Tory.

[Peasant]

One Nation Conservatism


The term denotes a political stance aspiring towards unity of the citizenry in the nation, as well as harmony between divergent classes and interest groups, as opposed to the social polarisation seen in the likes of both militant socialism and Thatcherism.

:confused: Is that so bad?

[Aelred]

One Nation Conservatism
:confused: Is that so bad?

Depends on if you think Maggie was right or not. Though Cam's Red Tories seem to be trying the same thing: reducing spending, cutting taxes, less centralised governmental regulation. Not the sort of stuff the One Nation folks wanted (more public spending.)

[Bridie]

I cannot believe that anyone would be silly enough to argue that the US is a part of the English nation! :D Even if you wanted to use the title of "British country" in place of "English nation", it would still make no sense when speaking of the US!


Happy Birthday in advance to all US Americans! :p



* Independence Day July 4th *

On July 4, 1776, we claimed our independence from Britain and Democracy was born. Every day thousands leave their homeland to come to the "land of the free and the home of the brave" so they can begin their American Dream.

The United States is truly a diverse nation made up of dynamic people. Each year on July 4, Americans celebrate that freedom and independence with barbecues, picnics, and family gatherings. Through the Internet we are learning about and communicating with people of different nations, with different languages and different races throughout the world. Bringing the world closer with understanding and knowledge can only benefit all nations.

We invite all nations to celebrate with Americans online this Fourth of July.

Happy Birthday, America!

http://usacitylink.com/usa/

[Bridie]

Speaking of public holidays, its Foundation Day here in West Australia tommorrow. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Day_(Western_Australia)

[Joe McCarthy]

I cannot believe that anyone would be silly enough to argue that the US is a part of the English nation! :D Even if you wanted to use the title of "British country" in place of "English nation", it would still make no sense when speaking of the US!


Happy Birthday in advance to all US Americans! :p

Well, our culture, language, political institutions, legal system, core population, much of our ruling class, etc., are derived wholly or in part from England and Britain. There is no denying the deep roots between us, and it helps explain in part why we aligned with Britain rather than Germany. As Bismarck said, the great story of the twentieth century would be that North Americans spoke English. Still, we're obviously not England, and centuries of independence has dimmed our memories a great deal. But there is definitely a tendency among some of the Brits here to underplay the connection to the point of absurdity.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think perhaps, its been a while since you've been there....

I think that's just Dublin that has an immigrant community, relatively small by standards of northern European capitals. Looked up statistics, Ethnic backgrounds: Irish: 96.7% , Asian: 0.3%, Black: 1.1%, Other/Mixed: 0.1%, Not Stated: 1.7%. Most other/mixed and 'not state' are probably eastern Europeans. Religious demographics are .8% muslim and .5% orthodox.


In regard to economic opportunities I would say:

(the higher a country is ranked the better)

1. United States of America
2. Australia and Canada
3. England
4. New Zealand
5. Scotland and Wales
6. Ireland

In regard to culture:

1. British Isles and Ireland
2. Oceania Isles
3. Canada
4. United States of America


Seen the news lately? No way America is top for economic opportunities. I'd say it'sL

In regard to economic opportunities I would say:

(the higher a country is ranked the better)

1. Australia & New Zealand
2. Canada
4. Ireland
5. US, London & surrounding area
Entirely devoid of worthwhile economy: Rest of Britain



In regard to culture:

1. US
2. Australia
3. Ireland & New Zealand
4. Canada & Britain



I cannot believe that anyone would be silly enough to argue that the US is a part of the English nation! :D Even if you wanted to use the title of "British country" in place of "English nation", it would still make no sense when speaking of the US!

It started out as one, and over time most immigrants assimilated into the system, mainly because they came from other northern European countries similar to the English.

What exactly is 'English' is hard to define, as England has had immigration from Scotland and Ireland for centuries. Many people said the South Africans were 'more English than the English'. English in the US are outnumbered by both Germans and Irish, but the English language and system of government is still in use (as it is in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales). Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are primarily settled by the English, but also from other parts of the Britain as well.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Sword, Ireland isn't in a better position than that of the US. You can still get a job in the US with relative ease with enlistment in the military always an available option. Unlike in Ireland where unemployment is at 15% and possibly higher with a depleted central bank (from bailing out their troubled banks). They have long ways to go before their economy gets better. Especially with an external debt of $2 trillion (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=Ireland&countryCode=ei&regionCode=eu&rank=7#ei)... so huge in comparison to Ireland's miniscule GDP of $164 billion.

[Bridie]

But there is definitely a tendency among some of the Brits here to underplay the connection to the point of absurdity. I don't think that anyone has underestimated the connections between the US and England. I think the problem is that they've been overestimated in this thread. :p



I think that's just Dublin that has an immigrant community, relatively small by standards of northern European capitals. Looked up statistics, Ethnic backgrounds: Irish: 96.7% , Asian: 0.3%, Black: 1.1%, Other/Mixed: 0.1%, Not Stated: 1.7%. Most other/mixed and 'not state' are probably eastern Europeans. Religious demographics are .8% muslim and .5% orthodox.I don't know about statistics, just about what I see when walking Irish streets. But sure, the problem is much worse in large cities (not just Dublin).



In regard to economic opportunities I would say:

(the higher a country is ranked the better)

1. Australia & New Zealand
2. Canada
4. Ireland
5. US, London & surrounding area
Entirely devoid of worthwhile economy: Rest of Britain



In regard to culture:

1. US
2. Australia
3. Ireland & New Zealand
4. Canada & Britain
I will play too! :D

Current economic opportunities:

1. Australia
2. Canada
3. Britain and US
4. Ireland and New Zealand


Culture:

1. Ireland
2. Britain
3. Canada and New Zealand
4. US
5. Australia

(I rank Australia last because we don't really have one.)



It started out as one, and over time most immigrants assimilated into the system, mainly because they came from other northern European countries similar to the English.Not so much assimilated, but helped to shape the development of the US into a nation.

Not sure how you can say that the non-British settlers in North America were anything similar to the English...



What exactly is 'English' is hard to define, as England has had immigration from Scotland and Ireland for centuries.I don't think its so difficult. Someone of British Isles origins who was born and raised in England. Whether someone with predominantly Irish or Welsh or Scottish background, but raised in England, wants to identify themselves as English or not, is their own business.



Many people said the South Africans were 'more English than the English'.I think you must be speaking of British South Africans, not Afrikaners. In my experience British South Africans tend to be pretentious to the point of seeming pompous.



English in the US are outnumbered by both Germans and Irish, but the English language and system of government is still in use (as it is in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales).
I won't argue about the US system of government, since I'm not too familiar with it, but I will say that it takes much more than just language and system of government to equate populations.



Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are primarily settled by the English, but also from other parts of the Britain as well.There was a large Irish presence in Australia from the very first days of colonisation. But I haven't claimed that we are an English nation in this thread. Remember I said...


You may even be able to stretch things and identify Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand as British, by way of being members of the Commonwealth of Nations. (But then you'd have to include other such members also like India, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica etc etc.) You may even, if you want a good kicking from some quarters, refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as British. But what's the story with Ireland and the US? :D

[Treffie]

1. Australia & New Zealand
2. Canada
4. Ireland
5. US, London & surrounding area
Entirely devoid of worthwhile economy: Rest of Britain

Ireland is a basket case economy at the moment, there are thousands of youngsters fleeing for mainland Britain to find work. In comparison, not many are going to the US as the situation isn't much better. Unemployment in London is as bad as Manchester, but not as bad as N Ireland. Btw, I live in an area where the rate stands at 2.3% and there are plenty of jobs.

Unemployment stats for the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117)


In regard to culture:

1. US
2. Australia
3. Ireland & New Zealand
4. Canada & Britain

Then I've been missing something all my life. If we're talking European high culture, this has to go Britain as high culture is usually associated with aristocracy and the elite. Culture however can mean many things; hierarchal colleges of further education (which means that the UK and the US are probably on equal terms); low culture - reality tv, pop music; popular culture - this is where the US in particular excels; working class culture. If we take all these factors into consideration, each nation is probably as strong as each other in its own way.

[Olavsson]

Why is there non-English nations on the list, like Wales, Scotland and Ireland? :confused:

[Treffie]

Why is there non-English nations on the list, like Wales, Scotland and Ireland? :confused:

Nglund had a funny turn :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

Sword, Ireland isn't in a better position than that of the US. You can still get a job in the US with relative ease with enlistment in the military always an available option.

Yeah, if you want a near minimum wage service job, these are relatively easy to come by in some parts of the country. Also a few other job areas like mechanic and truck driver. Good jobs for educated people, you can forget about.


Unlike in Ireland where unemployment is at 15%

U6 unemployment rate in the US is 15.8 (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)%, and this does not count those who have dropped out of the job market entirely.


I think you must be speaking of British South Africans, not Afrikaners.

Yes, the Afrikaners are a different group entirely.


In my experience British South Africans tend to be pretentious to the point of seeming pompous.

Well yes. That's they are the 'most British' :thumb001:

[billErobreren]

England. nuff said

[Curtis24]

If you're just talking about culture, I would say Australia. I have heard a lot of good things about that place. England itself, while having an impressive history, nowadays has a more degenerate culture than even America.

[Logan]

A good bit of Englishness in all the Countries listed. One for Motherland, and another for the right damm mess that might have been.

[Turkey]

It's got to be

Australia, canada or new zealand

Because we held off on mass immigration of non-whites longer.:thumb001:

Don't worry we'll soon be as broken as that crucible of negrofication called england:D

[BeerBaron]

Australia or Canada are the clear leaders, socialized health care, both have huge natural resource sectors good unemployment rates, lowish taxes, strong currencies and both actually rank higher on the economic freedom index than the US.

Australia has a high cost of living depending on where you are at, and Canada has Quebec, and its full of french assholes, nuff said.

UK doesn't really have anything to offer except history, its economy sucks, its expensive to live there. The US is great IF you are rich, but everything else sucks healthcare is expensive, the economy is shit, the currency is falling.

[Electronic God-Man]

Hiberno-English (which I do *not* speak, but which Americans and English alike seem to think that I do.)

Explain yourself.


in fact Americans of English descent are no doubt the least 'guilty' of this as we've been here the longest, are consequently the most assimilated, and the most patriotic.

Assimilated by whom? (You're not even here anymore, are you!?)