English/british Flags........a Symbol Of Racism?

[atyeoant]

I'm not so sure I have my basic facts wrong. For example, if you follow this link to the the etymological dictionary, it states quite clearly that "*Racist Term Removed" was, " Also applied by Eng. settlers to dark-skinned native peoples in India, Australia, Polynesia."

Here's the link:

Etymology Dictionary

Also, if you read Lawrence James's History of the British Raj, you will find plenty of evidence for the context in which it was used.

Before you accuse someone of getting their facts wrong, it's pretty important that you're sure of the facts yourself, other wise you could end up looking a little foolish.

Regarding, "our flags", I think you'll find people will read whatever symbolism they like into flags. If soemone sees the Union Jack as a racist symbol, they see it as a racist symbol. If soemone sees it as a symbol of benevolent colonisation then that's what they see. The point is, is that it is subjective.

With regard to getting my facts wrong, the source you refer to is American, (I have looked!). Try the Chambers - "*Racist Term Removed noun, offensive a person of Black African origin or race. ETYMOLOGY: 18c: from French nègre, from Spanish negro black." or the Oxford - "noun - offensive a black person." — USAGE The word *Racist Term Removed has had strong offensive connotations since the 17th century. Recently, however, it has begun to be used by black people as a mildly disparaging or ironically affectionate way of referring to other black people. Despite this, when used by white people it remains strongly offensive, and should be avoided. — ORIGIN from Spanish negro ‘black’." Don't want to argue too much about what was what & when, it could be far too lengthy to discuss on this forum, totally agree with your point about our flags though.

[dagest]

They left like to perpetuate the myth that their is no "English" race. This is clearly not true. The influence of the Norman fuedal system helped shape the English into a race unlike the world has ever seen. Warriors, sailors and businessmen. I would say the English race was born in 1066.

Who are "they"?

There was and is an English race, but this has changed fundamentally through the course of history. The modern Enlgish modern race is ethnically mixed and quite different from that of the "Dark Ages".

Claiming the English race was born in 1066 is patently absurd. The English aristocracy was crushed in 1066 and almost completely replaced by a French/Norman aristocracy whom imported their own cultural values and carved up the country between themselves. In fact, you could argue that the old English aristocracy were in a sense the essence of Englishness. And if you accept this, than the English virtually disappeared.

It was only with the loss of French territory (such as Gascony and Aquitaine) over the next couple of hundred of years that the "English" aristocracy re-invented itself as the English aristocracy. It is worth remembering that the quintissential English hero Richard the Lionheart considered himslef completely French and had all his body parts buried throughout France.

[Guest WillsbridgeRed]

So you say, 1000 years is not enough to create a race?

Of course it is, the British classes have stayed the same for that amount of time, with no change, so i think it's fair to say that such stability gives the final product.

i know you lefties like to say we're a ******* race, making it easier to justify your pro immigration nonsense, but I'd say my view makes more sense then that.

" fact, you could argue that the old English aristocracy were in a sense the essence of Englishness"

What twaddle, The very essence of Englishness is not taken from 1000 years ago.

[dagest]

So you say, 1000 years is not enough to create a race?

Of course it is, the British classes have stayed the same for that amount of time, with no change, so i think it's fair to say that such stability gives the final product.

i know you lefties like to say we're a ******* race, making it easier to justify your pro immigration nonsense, but I'd say my view makes more sense then that.

" fact, you could argue that the old English aristocracy were in a sense the essence of Englishness"

What twaddle, The very essence of Englishness is not taken from 1000 years ago.

I really have very little idea what you're talking about.

Who are you talking about - the Bristish or English?

What classes are you referring to?

Pro immigration nonsense? Enery ethnic group on this island is an immigrant/emigrant of some sort. There are no original inhabitants of this island.

The very essence of Englishness, as an ethnic group, is taken from approx 1400 years ago when Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to these islands. They are many English people's ancestors.

You don't think the English existed before 1066?

[hilltop red]

I posted this link a while back i think, but here it is again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

[annanimo]

I really have very little idea what you're talking about.

Who are you talking about - the Bristish or English?

What classes are you referring to?

Pro immigration nonsense? Enery ethnic group on this island is an immigrant/emigrant of some sort. There are no original inhabitants of this island.

The very essence of Englishness, as an ethnic group, is taken from approx 1400 years ago when Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to these islands. They are many English people's ancestors.

You don't think the English existed before 1066?

"Englishness" and "Britishness" are relative terms that have evolved according to social and cultural changes throughout the centuries.

Surely anyone can see that this evolutionary process in continuing and that our ideas of nationhood continue to change - it's pretty obvious that what it meant to be "English" in 1000 is completely different to what it meant to be "English" in 2000.

Dagest makes some interesting points, chiefly how we define a "race". Are the English a race or a collection of diverse people from various ethnic origins who live in the land we call England? Also, is there an Englisg culture or are there a variety of cultures and interpretations/expressions of English culture?

To miquote the quintesentially English hymn "Jeruslem", if Jesus did walk upon England's mountains green he would not have met a single person who considered themselves to be English.

[hilltop red]

Dagest makes some interesting points, chiefly how we define a "race". Are the English a race or a collection of diverse people from various ethnic origins who live in the land we call England? Also, is there an Englisg culture or are there a variety of cultures and interpretations/expressions of English culture?

English culture is surley both. For example the cornish consider themselves cornish, so this must part of the overall english culture. Culture cannot be one thing. iT has to be a group of tradtions, people ideas etc coming togther. This is what makes the english culture so difficult to define, because the people and customs and language is so divers on such a tiny island.

[CiderHider]

How far back in history do we need to go to find, esentially, the begining of the modern English culture, and is it relivent anyway, why are we needing to justity our right to be proud of what we and our ancestors have achived over the past 500/1000 years for thr world? are we suffering an identity problem?

You don't have to be a genius to understand that the English are/were among the most respected, admired, feared, trusted, insightful, creative, spirited & adaptable people ever to grace this world, we don't have to proved this, its not up for debate.

Look in the Enclyopoia, we wrote it. Look at the History books, we wrote them. How the hell did such a small country of such few people manage so much in such little time, when other countrys 6 x our population have done so little in their entire existance? It's our English culture, the essence of who we are.

England is a becon of sucess, no country on Earth could ever eclipse or recreate what this country has achived or contribute to society, not get anywhere close.

You could imagine that to some equally ancient countrys this is hard to swallow, expecially when they would consider their faith is supposedly the ultimate one, how did we achive all this with our inferior one? well sorry pals but stoneing your women and ranting on about the west is getting tiresome and a little predicatable, trying letting females learn to read & write then you should double your growth

and civilized countrys might start to speak to you....Bloody cavemen.

Our History is one worth celebrating and we have a proud set of traditions, but no, wait.... now you can't put deccys up at work becuase you might offend some ethnic...oh sorry, how stupid of me, there was me thinking Xmas was a celebration of our Christian faith, we've done it for like well forever but hey, don't worry about us 97% so long as the minority are not offended we'll forgo Christmas it's no bother at all, i mean it must be TEARING you guys up inside seeing us happy and Celebrating with our familys, so like i say really sorry, and here have some more free money, go on then have a few more mosques too..

I wonder what would happen if you asked the Ayatollah to build a Christain Church Terran?..... Cherrio Head!! :Wave:

[bucksred]

"Englishness" and "Britishness" are relative terms that have evolved according to social and cultural changes throughout the centuries.

Surely anyone can see that this evolutionary process in continuing and that our ideas of nationhood continue to change - it's pretty obvious that what it meant to be "English" in 1000 is completely different to what it meant to be "English" in 2000.

Dagest makes some interesting points, chiefly how we define a "race". Are the English a race or a collection of diverse people from various ethnic origins who live in the land we call England? Also, is there an Englisg culture or are there a variety of cultures and interpretations/expressions of English culture?

To miquote the quintesentially English hymn "Jeruslem", if Jesus did walk upon England's mountains green he would not have met a single person who considered themselves to be English.

He would have found BRITISH people though, the countless thousands of immigrants who have come here for many reasons, andf have found a home here in these soggy islands, and the British (Mostly English) way of life, freedom, and the freedom of choice. As proudly borne out by the English, British, Scottish, and even the Welsh flags..............

[annanimo]

He would have found BRITISH people though, the countless thousands of immigrants who have come here for many reasons, andf have found a home here in these soggy islands, and the British (Mostly English) way of life, freedom, and the freedom of choice. As proudly borne out by the English, British, Scottish, and even the Welsh flags..............

[Guest revkev]

I wonder what would happen if you asked the Ayatollah to build a Christain Church Terran?..... Cherrio Head!! :Wave:

[bucksred]

What, in the first century AD? I don't think so. At least, he wouldn't have found anyone who considered themselves British, nor would there have been any evidence of a British identity at that time.

Fussy, but true (I should have said English, or Welsh, Scots or Irish, rather than British), but there would have been few countries/nationalities who make up modern Europe present then. No Germany, Italy, Poland, Holland, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Spain, even France as it it today, despite their peoples being present in the regions then, although some form of the languages, territories, culture and characteristics would have been present, like this country. Every invader leaves some trace of their passing. Even if its only graveyards, customs, or religion. Aint many pure countries anyplace in Europe, if indeed any.

Back then the various tribes of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland would still seen themselves, as do the British today, residents (and most likely owners of this land), and as I know next to zero about ancient English history, so I cant be more specific, sorry, but I do know the history books teach of an English nation existing with Alfred the Great, and talk of Boudicca, as an English queen too.

Also British/English defeats have been few in history, and fewer have been decisive enough to lead to major problems. Battlers like: Ishandlawana, Spion Kop, Mons, Kut, Dunkirk, Crete, Tobruk, Burma, Singapore, Arnhem, to give some examples, although defeats, have always led to competant leadership, which then wins the wars they are associated with. As opposed to Germany, France, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Holland, Serbia, all who have been beaten in major confrontations, and have all been occupied even if only temporarily in the last three hundred years or so, and their national status has been diminished in a significant way, due to occupation.