Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell I'm not so sure about the Irish, but without the Scots and the Welsh the British Army would have been a rather less impressive thing. And in fact they had both ceded nationhood long before the Empire days.
How much were these nations proactively involved with the Empire contrasted with how much were they simply forced to go along?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot really (although it can be argued that they were not entirely fairly represented in the upper echelons) - discrimination in the United Kingdom and British Empire has historically been related more to class than to ethnicity and this goes doubly for the military. Certainly the Scots have been well represented at all levels in the armed forces and government for the last few hundred years.
How high in the ranks did the Scots and Welsh go? Was there a glass ceiling?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatBut doesn't class correlate with ethnicity? That's how it is here in the States.
Not really (although it can be argued that they were not entirely fairly represented in the upper echelons) - discrimination in the United Kingdom and British Empire has historically been related more to class than to ethnicity and this goes doubly for the military. Certainly the Scots have been well represented at all levels in the armed forces and government for the last few hundred years.
if one were to reply to this without a political agenda ( namely me ) i would say that there is no class levels in america.
there are divisions. the divisions are cultural. the cultural divisions spring partly from initial settlement of immigrants, followed by the church that congealed over the area and then the response to farm to city movement, from unionzation and then lastly to remembrance of cultural heritage versus centralized government answers to local problems. in short. class does not exist in america but cultural heritage does. this is not balkanization but rather the free market choice of values.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBritain was Ireland, Scotland, wales and England. It was never an English Empire and the smaller nations of Britain have always figured disproportionately large in English history. (e.g. Duke of Wellington)
How much were these nations proactively involved with the Empire contrasted with how much were they simply forced to go along?
The nations of the UK joined voluntarily and were never part of an Empire.
The 1707 Act of Union was an agreement between Scotland and England to form a united Kingdom (which made sense since the English had been subjects to Scottish kings for 100 years).
In 1801 the Parliaments of Ireland and GB each passed acts to unite Ireland with GB.
The Union of Wales and England is perhaps less democratic but never forget that the House of Tudor was a Welsh house.
Stories of English oppression are complete fantasy. The oppression was of the lower classes by the upper classes and nothing to do with ethnicity.
2 edits
Originally posted by reinfeldYour observations of culture and ethnicity are very accurate. However to go from these observations to the conclusion that class does not exist is not accurate.
if one were to reply to this without a political agenda ( namely me ) i would say that there is no class levels in america.
there are divisions. the divisions are cultural. the cultural divisions spring partly from initial settlement of immigrants, followed by the church that congealed over the area and then the response to farm to city movement, fro ...[text shortened]... cultural heritage does. this is not balkanization but rather the free market choice of values.
Class is a culture that exists alongside ethnic culture. It is not identical to it nor is the correlation 100% but there IS a strong correlation. Barack Obama can exist alongside disproportionate Afro-American poverty relative to Anglo ethnicity.
The culture of class is extremely powerful and subtle and to discount it is to hide so many of the subtle ways in which the poor are disadvantaged.
To contrast some of these ideas...
Shaka Zulu was racially African. He was ethnically Zulu. He was of the upper class of the Zulu culture which did not overlap with British culture at the time. His nationality equivalent was Zulu; the latter is not identical with his ethnicity - they simply have the same name. If Shaka moved to London, got British citizenship and was denounced by the Zulus, he would be of Zulu ethnicity but not of Zulu nationality.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I'm glad to see your perspective alongside the other, more common one. Now there's a debate to be had!
Britain [b]was Ireland, Scotland, wales and England. It was never an English Empire and the smaller nations of Britain have always figured disproportionately large in English history. (e.g. Duke of Wellington)
The nations of the UK joined voluntarily and were never part of an Empire.
The 1707 Act of Union was an agreement between ...[text shortened]... . The oppression was of the lower classes by the upper classes and nothing to do with ethnicity.[/b]