English anti-Semitism in the 1930s

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'm not sure how the fact we're all so similar doesn't make British breeds of nationalism look pathetic?

[Copperknickers II]

I'm not sure how the fact we're all so similar doesn't make British breeds of nationalism look pathetic?

It can't possibly make nationalism look pathetic unless you view the entire phenomenon of focusing on difference rather than similarity pathetic. All countries are populated by human beings. Just some prefer Irn-bru to coke, while others pioneered the slave trade. Some are proud that our ancestors fought for independence against an oppressive invader, others prefer to glorify said oppression. Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but we all have skin and eyes and limbs so I guess we're all exactly the same and there are no discernible differences whatsoever and so we should all treat each other exactly the same regardless of meaningless differences in religion and identity and politics (which things its a well known fact that nobody has ever had any sort of disagreement over in history. The Jews in 1930s England got on perfectly well with the Christians for example #DefinitelyNotOff-Topic).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nationalism is by definition a celebration of differences. In the British Isles they're so sub-cosmetic it's genuinely pathetic. But let's not go in circles on that; I think nationalism is pathetic, you identify as a Scottish nationalist, shall we just agree to disagree in advance?

[Copperknickers II]

Nationalism is by definition a celebration of differences. In the British Isles they're so sub-cosmetic it's genuinely pathetic. But let's not go in circles on that; I think nationalism is pathetic, you identify as a Scottish nationalist, shall we just agree to disagree in advance?

Nationalism is not just a celebration of differences, it is a well-known fact that dividing people into interest groups has a beneficial effect on morale and wellbeing, as well as production and work ethic. Humans are intrinsically tribal, differences are very important to our social systems, however small they are.

Although if the differences in the British isles are so sub-cosmetic, ceart gu leor tha thu ag 'tuigsinn mo cupla focal Ghaidhlig, right? And no I do not agree to disagree, because I don't agree that forced union with another country and destruction of its culture constitutes a valid reason to claim people who still remember that former culture are 'pathetic'.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nationalism is not just a celebration of differences, it is a well-known fact that dividing people into interest groups has a beneficial effect on morale and wellbeing, as well as production and work ethic. Humans are intrinsically tribal, differences are very important to our social systems, however small they are.

Although if the differences in the British isles are so sub-cosmetic, ceart gu leor tha thu ag 'tuigsinn mo cupla focal Ghaidhlig, right? And no I do not agree to disagree, because I don't agree that forced union with another country and destruction of its culture constitutes a valid reason to claim people who still remember that former culture are 'pathetic'.

"Well known fact" here with its unorthodox meaning of "something I pulled straight out of my arse".

You're from ****ing Glasgow via ****ing Bengal. Don't pretend you speak Gaelic.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Nationalism is not just a celebration of differences, it is a well-known fact that dividing people into interest groups has a beneficial effect on morale and wellbeing, as well as production and work ethic. Humans are intrinsically tribal, differences are very important to our social systems, however small they are.

Although if the differences in the British isles are so sub-cosmetic, ceart gu leor tha thu ag 'tuigsinn mo cupla focal Ghaidhlig, right? And no I do not agree to disagree, because I don't agree that forced union with another country and destruction of its culture constitutes a valid reason to claim people who still remember that former culture are 'pathetic'.

Big thing about nationalism though- It is truly an artificial construct developed over time. Now whether you go with the argument it was developed in the late 18th Century (Via Revolutionary ideals being spread around Europe, and the Romantic movement), or the 20th Century (Via fast-paced 'industrialization'). The fact remains it's something that was created artificially by either the State or by 'Philosophers and Intellectuals' of said time period. With the decline of traditional values (i.e. Religion and Dynastic holdings, alongside 'The village'- where you lived, worked and died mainly) in the face of early modern education, availability of printing, new infrastructure for travel, industrialization forcing workers to find jobs in nearby cities- the fabric of 'the state' was unraveled, with previous assumptions of identity and loyalty being displaced- a major issue for the fledgling 'modern states' - hence the promotion of 'nationalism' as a new 'tie-in'.

Through means of education, cultural symbolism. language and infrastructure you create this fabricated identity.

So realistically 'Scottish' is no more or less fabricated than 'British'. If you want to get down to the truth of things- why aren't we promoting regionalism over the more artificial construct of 'nationalism'? Regionalism has a longer history- Edinburgh for instance is different to Glasgow in the same ways that you could say Scotland is different to England, Wales or N.Ireland.

Did you know 'Gaelic' is a highland- specific culture and language? For someone like me, A Jardine from the lowlands, its historically a 'foreign' and alien thing. So why is it being made the 'Scottish' language?

The key- to differentiate us from England- the fabrication of nationalism in action.

So i'm not sure why you'd use Gaelic to highlight said differences between us and England mate, when actually Gaelic itself isn't 'Scotland' it's historically used and retained by the highlanders- at no point did the majority of the Lowlanders (and incidentally typically the most populous area of Scotland) speak Gaelic- Brittonic would be a better fit for ancient lowland languages if we wanted to go down that route.

Indeed (Sorry you've got me started now on the current Gaelic fad...) Why the heck are we in Scotland wasting tax-payers money on reviving a language that was never once the official and most wildly spoken language in the area of Scotland today!? It has no historical basis (Beyond the romantic tourist images of highlanders) for being a comprehensive language spoken in all areas of Scotland. Nor does 'Scots' for that matter- but that's something that's so regionally specific a mish-mash of English, German, Scandanavian, Dutch, Gaelic bits and French bobs, that a person who speaks 'Scots' in say Edinburgh will have a hard time understanding a person who speaks 'Scots' in Orkney. Again highlighting the artificial and entirely modern idea of Scottish 'nationalism' as a unifying force- and the ridiculousness of the whole thing of 'language' separating us... darn right it separates us...from fellow Scottish regions...

[Sharpe]

Nationalism is not just a celebration of differences, it is a well-known fact that dividing people into interest groups has a beneficial effect on morale and wellbeing, as well as production and work ethic. Humans are intrinsically tribal, differences are very important to our social systems, however small they are.

Although if the differences in the British isles are so sub-cosmetic, ceart gu leor tha thu ag 'tuigsinn mo cupla focal Ghaidhlig, right? And no I do not agree to disagree, because I don't agree that forced union with another country and destruction of its culture constitutes a valid reason to claim people who still remember that former culture are 'pathetic'.

Pffff, I'm British by way of Ireland I disagree.

This has always been a problem in the British Isles and it stems from overtly idealistic people such as yourself, always trying to push the differences in an ultimately homogeneous environment. Aren't you from India? I'm probably more Scottish than you, my family and ancestors have lived on these islands as far back as we can trace.

Put an average Irishman, Welshman, Englishman, Scotsman, Manx and Jèrriais in the same room and they will get on like a house on fire. A Scotsman from Edinburgh is far more likely to get on with an Englishman from London, rather than his own countryman from John O' Groats, yet an Englishman from Land's End is far more likely to get on with the Scotsman from John O' Groats than his countryman from London.

Cultural exchange of the natives is fundamental to the fabric of the British Isles. We are intrinsically similar, there is that ******** myth that the English are like some outside Germanic group which has been proven to be absolute bollocks that the "Celts" love to perpetuate; bollocks, none of us are Celts or Germans, we're all from the British Isles and that's it. There's a good chance that many Scots have more English blood than Scottish and vice versa, just shows how fabricated "Scottishness" and "Englishness" are. Always better together, even my fervently Irish Granddad admitted that. Any battlefield in Europe for the last 2000 years has Irish, Welsh, English and Scottish buried side-by-side.

I'm not saying dispose of tradition and heritage because that would be shame, but stop pretending there is some massive difference based on geographical lines in the sand. You think a villager from bloody Paxton is overtly Scottish because he lives in Scotland? He practically lives in England!

And talk of reviving the Celtic languages - my family actually speaks Gaeilge FYI - lets revive Brittonic (A language spoken by BOTH ancient Scots and the people who would become the English) and Cumbric while we're at it, muh Celts.

I mean how far back do you want to go?