Originally posted by sangfroidWow, I thought you were talking about the U.S. for a minute there.🙂
I'm sick of the Scots and Welsh harping on about how 'bad' England is, how we have repressed them in the past, how arrogant we are so on and so on and so on...
I never used to have a problem at all with anyone from the UK as far as I was concerned we are just the same living on this tiny island and that is what makes us so great, our pride and passion, ...[text shortened]... have a say in the world, let them have their tin pot parliaments and good riddance.
Originally posted by Charles JohnstonWhen someone asks me where I am from, I always say Pennsylvania, USA.
Please tell me why some refer to being from England and othere from United Kingdom. If united Kingdom, why not specify the particular country your from. I don't understand the thinking process here. My ancestors come over from Scotland and I would never refer to being from the United Kingdom, although that would technically be correct. Please explain.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
The post that was quoted here has been removedNo, he's the Scottish tennis player who, barely out of his teens (if he is that old...), could serve, smash, volley and dropshot the legs clean off Tim Henman already. That's bad enough, for anyone living within 20 miles from Wimbledon... and that includes all of both Fleet Street and the Isle of Dogs.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow Blueahem. Why don't the Brits ever win Wimbleton?
No, he's the Scottish tennis player who, barely out of his teens (if he is that old...), could serve, smash, volley and dropshot the legs clean off Tim Henman already. That's bad enough, for anyone living within 20 miles from Wimbledon... and that includes all of both Fleet Street and the Isle of Dogs.
Richard
Originally posted by sangfroidPlonker.
I'm sick of the Scots and Welsh harping on about how 'bad' England is, how we have repressed them in the past, how arrogant we are so on and so on and so on...
I never used to have a problem at all with anyone from the UK as far as I was concerned we are just the same living on this tiny island and that is what makes us so great, our pride and passion, ...[text shortened]... have a say in the world, let them have their tin pot parliaments and good riddance.
i think nation states are much less important than they used to be. here on tfci change my flag every couple of weeks. turkmenistan's is good because it looks like a beautiful woven carpet, and nepal's is a good shape. i flew the iraqi flag for a while and that was good because it started some interesting conversations. this week i'm proudly flying the stars and stripes.
i'm one of what i suspect is a majority of people in the uk (but clearly a minority of the posters in this thread so far) who have no problem with belonging both to the uk and to one of its constituent nations - i'm english and i'm also therefore british. i'm also european, for that matter.
i find the alleged anti-english feeling in scotland and alleged anti-scottish feeling in return that some posters have referred to incredibly childish and boring, and i'm glad i've never seen any sign of it in real life.
but mostly i'm nepalese because its flag is a cool shape.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYou forgot to mention my 'bulldog tattoo' and St Georges Cross shorts, shaved head and addiction to Carling.
What a succinct descriptive of a person who is involved in myth perpetuation, and who speaks with all the ignorance of someone who's idea of foreign travel is going to Corfu for two weeks and belching at the locals....😛
Besides, your post smacks of hypocrisy itself.
The nation-state hasn't gone away. When people think of nationalism they tend to think of extremes like the unravelling of the former Yugoslavia they tend to overlook the day-to-day banal nationalism. Mythology and semiology bombard our subconscious with meanings that reinforce the nation.
The strength of the nation's resistance is seen in what it can still motivate us to do. Do you think that people will soon be willing to give up their life for some idea of global citizenship?
In terms of the UK there is some confusion because a new nation is trying to supplant a few older nations in order to maintain the political entity: in the UK there is a natural shift towards the creation of a nation-state: the United Kingdom is a work in progress. This rendering is based on Hobshawn's idea that a 'nation' is any group that feels they belong together as a nation.
The media have adopted the term nation wholesale. I don't think this is motivated by any machiavellian desire to control the populace, to get the people to re-conceptualise themsleves as UK nationals. I think this is because it makes sense in market terms to identify the sell-to group with one identity.
Of course this begs the question that since market forces are ever more global will the market now become global? Is global citizenship the future? I think it has become more difficult for the nation-state to generate democratic legitimacy under the pressure of global capitalism but it is a bit too early to write off the nation yet.
If you think of the Jewish example. For years the Jewish people wandered without a state (and no-one wished to follow them), eventually they were subject to a horrific genocide. It was this tragic event in Jewish world history that galvanised the Jewish people to seek a state of their own. Not because they applauded the instruments of the nation-state, the flag, the passport but because they needed it for protection.
The nation-state is one arena among many that defines the boundary of a polity. It's birth was in the late nineteenth century so it is still quite nascent, can a world citizenry emerge that will offer the same protections to its people as the nation has done? I would suggest that the genocide in Rwanda is one example were the world failed to act: well shucks there was no oil there. It makes me think that the nation-state will be here for at least a little longer.
Originally posted by NordlysA global humanist? I remember reading an argument that there wouldn't be a genuinely transcendent notion of global citizenry until the existence of extra-terrestrial life was discovered. The argument runs that since the self is constructed dialogically then there must always be the 'other' component.
I am from Earth.
I am currently researching alternatives to the nation-state:
1. Civil Society argument which is, almost an anarcho-syndicalist approach adapted (well it relies heavily on the Polish Soldarity movement) by the communitarian Walzer.
2. 'Politics of difference' with the call to differentiated citizenship as advocated by Iris Marion Young (the late).
3. Multiculturalism as advocated by loads of peeps but not so neoteric as it once was.
4. Global citizenship as exemplified by Habermas. I like Habermas, I never used too I always thought he was striving for a sythesis between two incommensurate extremes. I still think he is but now I think that is attempt to do so is illuminating. He is a terrible writer though, you really have to wade through him. I might try to learn German to see if he is easier in his own language.
I wonder if any of these alternatives can motivate the acharnement that nationalism does.
PS I admire your lucidity Nordlys, though as my posts show I can't replicate your succintness.