Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
fatshaft

So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, woolley said:

No it isn't. We aren't talking about selective breeding. We are discussing the history of the distinct British identity and how it has developed over more than a millennium. Yes, it is partly insular but it is also that of a maritime trading nation. You are missing the point by questioning 1066, 1415 etc. It's all of those. Are you saying that it means nothing to be British?

I am saying that national borders are nothing but lines drawn on a map.  Why should we not start to forget about border lines on a map and start to concentrate on how we can work closely together to improve this planet which we share with billions of others.  

Of course we should learn about our history and we should be impressed with the developments that have taken place but we should also consider them successes (or failures in some cases) of all humanity.  It is very rare to find an advancement that was isolated to one single place.  People all over the world evolved and developed the same or slightly different solutions to the problems they encountered.  These were then shared, copied or stolen as international movement increased.

I just do not like this rise in tribalism - whether it be at a local or national level - and certainly do not want to see another cold war or god help us a global conflict.  I see Brexit as a symptom rather than a cause of rising nationalism and whilst I am not overly concerned about the UK going to war I do look at the posturing between countries such as China, Russia, USA and North Korea with some concern.  And for what purpose?  Because they somehow believe that a line on a map is important?  That there "shared experiences" somehow make them better than anyone else? 

I am sure you will think I am a citizen of nowhere.  I would argue I am a citizen of Earth, a Human who believes that we need to learn from the past and build a better future.  I most certainly do not want a return to multinational tension and war where the only victors are the wealthy.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Juvenile? maybe but perhaps life's experiences have yet to make you think otherwise.

Using a local example (just for illustration purposes) let's say you are a professional employed by the gov. and you have to take them to task on a false disciplinary procedure.

When all the normal channels have been explored, the final arbiter is our AG who is employed by your employer with whom you have fallen out. If you think his decision is sub optimal where do you then take your grievance? Yeah nowhere.....  That "little restriction" will apply to the UK too after Hop Tu Naa....

A scenario that's never happened to you? Long may that continue but until then, less of the pejoratives if you don't mind.

I agree with the above actually. I know people who have been in precisely this position believe it or not, but the UK is hardly the Isle of Man. It's a thousand times bigger and far more sophisticated. I don't think we need worry on this score. Juvenile was meant to be descriptive not pejorative. If that offends your sensibilities it's a good thing you aren't on this side of the divide with the rubbish we have to put up with from the superior remainers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try hard not be a superior remainer. It doesn't take much effort.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

You didn’t understand my post. My point is that the rules of the Single Market differ very little from the rules agreed on in any bilateral trade agreement, so if the U.K. wants to engage in trade it has to abide by trade treaties. The choice is whether it wants to be on the inside helping to make the rules, or on the outside being dictated to by bigger markets. Oh, but yeah, but if you actually think the U.K. would be ‘taking back control’ of the terms of trade by leaving the organisation that makes them and dictating the rules to the big boys all by itself, then yeah, I can see where you’re coming from; cloud cuckoo land. 

I did understand. I didn't agree. That's what you don't understand. What the UK agrees is fine. What is imposed from "above" is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, woolley said:

No. Because as evolution proves, once isolated the characteristics change and adapt in different directions. In our case we emerged with a distinct British identity having a shared experience of life in our islands. As I said, well over a thousand years of almost total homogeneity with only minor exceptions.

Farage, François, Raab, Johnson, Fox, - how very homogeneous they are. Not. You’re talking out of your hole again Mr Woolley. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. 

You attempted to attribute a statement or position to me that I did not present myself, and then used that to attempt to refute the actual statement I made.

Box in your box granddad.

You presented an effect directly attributable to a policy but deny the connection. Box in your box too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Freggyragh said:

Farage, François, Raab, Johnson, Fox, - how very homogeneous they are. Not. You’re talking out of your hole again Mr Woolley. 

Well as the expert, you would know. The very idea of denying a distinct British identity is precisely that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

You presented an effect directly attributable to a policy but deny the connection. Box in your box too.

You still used a straw man argument, which I called you out on.  It is not my fault that you are not able to understand your own mental gymnastics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woolley said:

Well as the expert, you would know. The very idea of denying a distinct British identity is precisely that.

And how would you define this "distinct" British Identity?  Should ask someone who live in London, Birmingham, St Ives or York?  Maybe someone in their 20's, 50's or 80's?  Someone Caucasian, Black or Asian?  Someone who grew up on a council estate, in the suburbs or in Kensington?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At school I was taught if I recall aright that the Romans made reference to the "little Brits" meaning Britons and invented the image of Britannia.. King James 1/VI proclaimed the Union Flag in 1606 when apparently we first see the term "Great Britain" itself a translation of the Roman name the other Britain being "Little Britain" or Brittany...The term Great Britain came in and took hold around the 1707 Act of Union as they were not sure what to call the new creation so formally used the old Roman name of Great Britain. However, Scotland also began to be known as North Britain although the term South Britain for England and Wales did not catch on. Way back in the mid 1950s the term "NB" for North Britain  was still being used when addressing envelopes for the post and I recall being instructed to do this. So this is when the term "British" came in but I suppose it is geopolitical. According to modern historians Paul Revere in 1775 did not say "The British are coming" he said "The regulars are coming".....(They tell me?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proclaiming the union flag in 1606 looks a bid odd to me I would have thought later but that is what I have seen written down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always believed England, Scotland and Wales were Great (as in large), Ireland was Minor Britain. I don't know where I learnt it though. Probably on here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rodders said:

I've always believed England, Scotland and Wales were Great (as in large), Ireland was Minor Britain. I don't know where I learnt it though. Probably on here. 

 

The Romans originated it long before the countries making up the UK as now existed in their present form. The Romans were aware of two Britains. That is to say the mass of what is now England, Scotland and Wales. This they called Great Britain as they were aware of a small Britain which they referred to as Brittany or Little Britain/Lesser Britain. Ireland was seen as too cold to be of much comfort and was known as Hibernia as in hibernation. Eventually the Roman name Great Britain referred to the area south of Caledonia..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That was a distinction based on language. Great Britain (England, parts of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall) and Little Britain (Brittany) spoke British (the older form of Welsh, Cornish and Breton). So, a thousand years ago British meant Welsh, varieties of which were spoken everywhere in these isles except the Gaelic speaking areas - Ireland, the West of Scotland and the Isle of Man. 

Angloish, or Anglo-Saxon,  (a mixture of languages spoken by the Jutes, from Denmark, Angles, from North Germany / South Denmark, the Saxons North Germany and the Frisians from Holland and Flanders) came later, after the Romans had gone, but didn’t become anything like what we know as English until it merged with Norman French, Latin and a host of other languages to form English - a language that did not exist anywhere near a thousand years ago.

 

 

Edited by Freggyragh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient Britons were au fait with Latin and to a lesser extent Greek long before the Roman colonisation and they used both sometimes in abbreviated form on their coins. Colchester museum has a collection of pre-Roman coins minted by the Trinovantes of Camulodunon in the Brythonic way or Camulodunum in Latin. ie Colchester. As Rome took hold the coins of the Britons gave way to Roman issue. I do not know what the Britons called themselves in their own language but the tribes seem all to have their names in Latin presumably because they had no clear written language themselves or so it is said. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...