Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: And... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:54:27 11/05/04 Fri In reply to: Ed Harris (Venezia) 's message, "Regionalism" on 15:30:34 11/05/04 Fri Just think about imagery in literature... it's all about England. "Oh to be in England, now that April's there." "Was Jerusalem builded here in England's green and pleasant land?" "There is some corner of a foreign field that shall be forever England." "Never the lotus closes, never the wildfowl wake, But a soul goes out on the East Wind that died for England's sake. Man or woman or suckling, mothe or bride or maid - Because on the bones of the English the English flag is stayed." "... This Earth, this realm, this England; This England that were wont to conquer others hath made a shameful conquest of herself!" Not many land-mark expressions of national identity with lines like "Oh to be in the South East Sub-Regional Divion now that Spring is here..."; not many battle cries like, "For God, Queen, and the North West Region Unitary Authority!" It doesn't have the same resonance as "England", and there is a reason for that. I imagine that a similar thing could be seen in Scotland if someone tried to separate politically the Highlands and Lowlands. And as for Ireland, well... I think we can see every day how much of a psychological difficulty it is for the Irish to live in two countries on their one island. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: England! Where the Sacred flame/Burns before the inmost shrine.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:08:09 11/05/04 Fri What you are illuminating here is exactly one of the problems our 'British' identity has - the English insist on going on about England all the time - often when they mean Britain, or even the Empire. It leaves everyone else out. It p*sses them off. It encourages them to sing about flowers of Scotland and killin gthe English for their arrogance. It is not very helpful. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Exactly! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:21 11/05/04 Fri And I mean "exactly" towards both Dave and Nick's comments. It is one of the problems but its origin is in age. England as one unitary, homogenous political, cultural and economic entity is 1300 years old. Scotland too, although I think that the evolution of a central government in Edinburgh came later... say, at most a mere 900 years ago. Difficult to overturn that overnight. But it is irritating when people say "England" to mean Britain... it makes me froth at the mouth, and I live in England! Foreigners are the worst at this, and in some cases it is not their fault: the Italians, for example, don't have a word for "British" except for "Britannico", which really refers to the ancient Britons as a tribe, not the modern sense of an adjective meaning "pertaining or refering to the United Kingdom"; so they just say "inglese". The Americans, though, have no excuse, and only the other day some Republican senator was talking about rebuilding the Atlantic alliance, and he said, "What's the point? In our future missions we'll be looking for the support of countries with military reach and experience, which doesn't mean France or Germany, it means England." Bit rude, considering that the chaps helping out the Yanks in the Triangle of Death this week are all Scots! And this sort of mistake doesn't help. Still, no-one can answer for anyone but himself; in which context, I can state that it is not a mistake that I ever make, and I am proud to call myself British. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: annoyance | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:23 11/05/04 Fri Ed and Nick, you are both right about the annoyance of having my country reffered to as England. I get so mad about it (one time I got so mad about it on the paradox forum that they band me, which was the first time). Its such an insult towards me and the rest of Wales, plus Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is one of the reasons I wnat to see a united British sports teams, that way people will get used to saying Britain rather than Wales, England or Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Flower of Scotland vs God Save the Queen | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:58:08 11/05/04 Fri "It encourages them to sing about flowers of Scotland and killin gthe English for their arrogance." As opposed to God Save the Queen which had a verse about killing the Scots? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Had, and only the rebellious ones | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:46 11/05/04 Fri GSTQ HAD a verse about killing Scots, and only the rebellious ones.:-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's still offensive | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:03:22 11/05/04 Fri You can't complain about one, without complainign about the other. Which do you want, an anti-English one reminding us of past atrocities or an anti-Scottish one reminding us of past atrocities? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:35 11/05/04 Fri But that verse is no longer part of GSTQ, and hasn't been for a long time. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Offensive anthems | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:11:09 11/05/04 Fri "But that verse is no longer part of GSTQ, and hasn't been for a long time." It's part of the original song. Perhaps forcing people to sing about religion and a foreign queen is offensive too. Even Jerusalem would be a better choice. Or land of hope and glory. They have better tunes. But still mention religion... what the hey..> The good news is that more and more Scots recognise GSTQ for what it is. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 'Rebellious Scots to crush' wasn't part of the original song - it was inserted during the Jacobite rebellion, then erased. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:53:10 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It still annoys many Scots though. I think GSTQ is an unsuitable anthem anyway nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:19 11/08/04 Mon -- [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: not entirely true | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:30:54 11/05/04 Fri Well as it happens there is no official version of GSTQ so you could argue that killing the scots is still part of it if you like. The Monarchy has has always refused to make any version pernament, thus allowing it to change with the times. Aslo note that at the time it was first written the jacobite rebellion was on everyones mind. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthems, teams etc | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:05:37 11/06/04 Sat “Perhaps forcing people to sing about religion and a foreign queen is offensive too” Please explain why the Queen is a foreigner? “Even Jerusalem would be a better choice. Or land of hope and glory” Jerusalem would make a good anthem for England, but I have always regarded Land of Hope and Glory to be a British, rather than an English song. I admit that I get quite annoyed when England sports teams sing the anthem of the United Kingdom. However, there is nothing to stop the Scottish teams singing it also. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, and we will continue to sing Roy Williamson’s dirge of hatred for the foreseeable future. I’m with Owain here - unite the sports teams, and the problem is solved. It would be a fair deal - Scotland would participate in the best Rugby and Football teams in the world, and England would share in Curling glory! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Combined Team | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:27:26 11/06/04 Sat I would support a combined UK team in all sports apart from Rugby Union. If that happened the internation game would be destroyed! The Six Nation would become the 4 nations, with a weaker Ireland because Ulster players would be playing for the UK rather than an all-Ireland team. The Four Nations champion would simply be decided by whoever won the test between the UK and France. What would happen to the near sacred British and Irish Lions? Although they could still go on it would be less. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: We would have a better five nations... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:20 11/06/04 Sat We would instead have a new five nations of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. This would be a much better tournament, where the winner would not be a foregone conclusion every year. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: too far to travel for each round - keep the teams as they are | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:20:16 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 5 nations | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:37 11/06/04 Sat It would simply spoil the world cup. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Speaking of which... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:49:54 11/06/04 Sat Has anyone given any thought to a proposed FC anthem? I suppose that there ought to be one, as well as a flag and all that malarkey. Since Canada, NZ and Australia have stopped using 'God Save the Queen', it now has, I fear, the connotation of representing HM's subjects in the UK only, and as such would probably not be acceptable to the former dominions. Thoughts, anyone? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthem | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:15:04 11/07/04 Sun A recent poll in Australia had support for "God Save the Queen" as Australian anthem at 1%. I think we will need to find a new completely unbiased anthem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthems | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:51:49 11/09/04 Tue Bloke suggested to me an old Pan-Britannic hymn as an anthem. He seemed to think that it was written at the time of the New Imperialism, around 1890, but I rather fancy that the words were written during the 'Old' New Imperialism after 1759 and the music was written before 1870. Still, for what it's worth... Hills of the North, rejoice; River and mountain spring, Hark to the advent voice; Valley and lowland, sing; Though absent long, your Lord is nigh; He judgment brings and victory. Isles of the southern seas, Deep in your coral caves Pent be each warring breeze, Lulled be your restless waves: He comes to reign with boundless sway, And makes your wastes His great highway. Lands of the East, awake, Soon shall your sons be free; The sleep of ages break, And rise to liberty. On your far hills, long cold and gray, Has dawned the everlasting day. Shores of the utmost West, Ye that have waited long, Unvisited, unblest, Break forth to swelling song; High raise the note, that Jesus died, Yet lives and reigns, the Crucified. Shout, while ye journey home; Songs be in every mouth; Lo, from the North we come, From East, and West, and South. City of God, the bond are free, We come to live and reign in thee! It's fairly obvious, reading between the lines, that a lot of this is about the British Empire, especially the last verse: people from all parts of the globe, all races of the human family, 'coming home' to Jesus etc., cunningly worded in imperial cliches ('palm and pine' stuff) so that it can also mean the British administrators and soldiers coming home from all over the world to Blighty. I imagine that this hymn inspired Kipling's "The Flag of England", which in turn inspired the US Marine's battle hymn, which contains almost identical references to the non-geographical nature of their reach and influence - appropriate for the FC, whose concept of nationality is not geographical. Perhaps not appropriate for the US marines, though, who have difficulty subduing a small town occupied by a few hairy ne'er-do-wells armed with water pistols. Anyway, whatever you think of the words, I like the melody! Try and find a midi-file of it on the internet. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: if only we could take out the "Jesus" references ... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:28:57 11/10/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Absolutely | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:45:06 11/10/04 Wed I quite agree. But, of course, we needn't remove the vague references to 'god', since people of whatever religion have some kind of god... except for the Buddhists, I suppose, but then we could hardly have a reference to Sidhartha Gautama and karmic oneness in the anthem: it would be a bit New Age for me. But, as Disraeli said, there should be some state acknowledgement of god, not just because he wanted to suggest that the function of the state had a spiritual as well as a material dimension, but also to acknowledge "our belief in morality and hope for the future of humanity". (A touch of Enoch Powell here, perhaps? "I never think of religion, but I believe that there should be an established Church and that the Queen shouldbe the head of it"...) That's why I think that the U.S.A.'s oath of allegiance and all that "in God we trust" stuff works so well: it doesn't say which god! But, to summarise: yes, enough with the Jesus bit already, but that doesn't mean that the anthem needs to be entirely secular. I accept that, even though, if I were pressed for a religious opinion, I would have to call myself an agnostic at best, and an atheist at worst. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Poll | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:03:35 11/08/04 Mon Pffff, glad I'm far away from there. ;-) Could you provide a link to the aforesaid poll? And I suppose that 'Rule, Britannia!' is out of the question? :-P [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: God Save The Queen is still Canada's Royal Anthem | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:45:13 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bizarre Scottish Regions | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:07 11/05/04 Fri I agree with Ed here. Regional boundaries are more than just lines on a map. They are a part of our identity. I understand why people from Australia or Canada might be puzzled by this, as their boundaries are just arbitrary straight lines in many instances. We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times, and the present day county shires, which Britain would be a much poorer place without. It’s funny that you should mention Scotland Ed, as this is exactly what happened during the seventies, when the last iconoclastic Labour Government were in power. They abolished our historic shires and ancient kingdoms, and replaced them with meaningless monolithic regions such as Strathclyde, Highlands and Islands, Grampian, Border, Central and so forth. Strathclyde was probably the worst, and lumped in people from the Argyll peninsular, Isle of Arran, Ayrshire and Metropolitan Glasgow in the same Authority. Thankfully, the Conservatives ended this madness, and restored the county system. Although I got my county back, it was split into three (North, South and East Ayrshire), but for political reasons, this is no bad thing. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Provinces | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:57:01 11/05/04 Fri "We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times" The only Anglo-Saxon province in Scotland was Northumbria. Try Norse, Pictish etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ? | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:03:46 11/05/04 Fri Genetically, the whole of the East coast of Scotland up to and including Dundee has been populated by Anglo-Saxons since they arrived here in the dark ages. It is referred to as the "Anglo-Saxon coast" historically. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wrong!!! Very wrong! | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:04 11/05/04 Fri The Anglo-Saxons reached the Forth. They did NOT reach the Tay. Hence you find medieval English names in Fife, but not true Anglo-Saxon ones. You will however find plenty of Pictish and Gaelic names in Fife and Dundee from around a thousand years ago. The main boundary of the Anglian kingdom was the Forth to the north, and the Esk in the west, although this boundary was unstable, and once reached into West Lothian. Genes don't come into it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I suggest you find out what you are talking about... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:26 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually he/she is right - the Anglo-Saxons didn't reach the Tay, they reached the Forth, a big difference. They didn't reach Glasgow either nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:23 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:26:17 11/07/04 Sun And don't the Highlanders traditionally refer to Lowlanders as 'Sassenachs', which, I can only presume from my limited knowledge of Gaelic, means 'Saxon'? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Generally no | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:01:39 11/08/04 Mon The Highlanders tended to refer to the Lowlanders as "Gall". Incidentally this same element is found in the name of the Hebrides (na h-Innse Gall), DoneGAL, GALLoway (Gaidhlig speaking until the 19th century see Lorimer et al in "Scottish Gaelic Studies", "Carn" and other sources), and GALway. The Lowlands are known as "Galldachd" (Gall-dom), NOT "Sasainn". Sasunnach does indeed mean Saxon, but what Wattie Scott got wrong, is that it was more used for proper English, than anglicised Lowlanders. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:25 11/09/04 Tue Thanks for the correction. I see I must brush up on my Gaelic. I have a copy of Mog an Cat somewhere which may help. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anglo Saxon Scotland | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:40:05 11/06/04 Sat Deira, whether there were Anglo-Saxon provinces in Scotland or not is irrelevant. I imagine you were trying to correct something I said with your comments? If you look at my quote that you so helpfully included in your post, you will see that I made no such reference to Anglo-Saxon Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: English regionalism | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:10:04 11/05/04 Fri These strike me as having the most powerful identities... The Scouse and the Geordies. In fact, they almost separate themselves off from other English. Then... Yorkshire... p.s. The Cornish are not English, according to various bodies in Cornwall. Under ethnicity, when you sign up for a doctor you can say English OR Cornish! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:10:24 11/06/04 Sat You can't sign "Jewish", since it is considered only a religion and not an ethnicity. This is bizarre, and only goes to show that official definitions of what consitutes racial, cultural and ethnic groups are usually far from accurate. I trust only how people define themselves, not how HM Government chooses to pigeon-hole them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |