"Anyone but Little England"

[Neil Pickup]

900s? I get the feeling there are people who'd block it today!

 

[C_C]

That's not the point I was trying to make.

In the same way as the Walloons are different culturally to the Flems, there are cultural dividing-lines all over the British Isles because of circumstances of history (the south and west of England was still speaking a mixture of Latin and French until the 14th century, whereas the north and east was still heavily under the influence of the old "Danelaw"). Same thing in the west - Offa's Dyke was a barrier built to keep the bogging Welsh out, and if people in the 900's could have blocked the Tamar with a huge pasty they would have. The Scots have a massive Scandinavian influence (but going back hundreds or even thousands of years before the invasion of eastern England) - and then there's Merseyside. When the Romans tried it on, they were slit up a treat and the chariots were up on bricks before you could say "Caaalm daaahn".

I am aware of much of what you describe. However, like i said, those 'flavourings' are present in any cultural sphere....'dialects of the same culture' if you will...not seperate cultures.... culture is much much more than that.
Ultimately, the cultural diversity you see in places like India is similar to entire europe and the mediterranean being under one national banner - there are cultures in Indian cultural spheres that are literally as alien to each other as Egyptian culture is to the English.
And the difference you see in the UK culturally is miniscule difference.....less than 5% variance from one point to another instead of it being the other way round.

 

[Langeveldt]

Seen one city in England, you've seen them all? Try going to Sunderland and calling the local inhabitants Geordies - they'll tear you a new bottom before you can sing "Blaydon Races".

But thats Sunderland.. To be honest, most high streets in England looks the same, the people look the same, the shops are the same, nearly everyone speaks English.. Okay some of the historical buildings/landmarks are distinctive, and the accents are pretty varied, but thats about it..

 

[luckyeddie]

I am aware of much of what you describe. However, like i said, those 'flavourings' are present in any cultural sphere....'dialects of the same culture' if you will...not seperate cultures.... culture is much much more than that.
Ultimately, the cultural diversity you see in places like India is similar to entire europe and the mediterranean being under one national banner - there are cultures in Indian cultural spheres that are literally as alien to each other as Egyptian culture is to the English.
And the difference you see in the UK culturally is miniscule difference.....less than 5% variance from one point to another instead of it being the other way round.

OK, bottom line.

What are you trying to say - and more to the point, why? Just about every thread you ever contribute to boils down to the same questions about racial diversity and ethnicity. Personally, I don't give a damn about the colour of anyone's skin, and more to the point I care even less about who bonked whom in years gone by.

Incidentally, the local Sikh temple had the best vegetable samosas I've ever tasted. Now THAT's culture.

 

[luckyeddie]

But thats Sunderland.. To be honest, most high streets in England looks the same, the people look the same, the shops are the same, nearly everyone speaks English.. Okay some of the historical buildings/landmarks are distinctive, and the accents are pretty varied, but thats about it..

You could lose the whole of England in a single American state. What the hell do you expect? We're a tiny island. People have run from one end to the other in a fortnight.

 

[Langeveldt]

You could lose the whole of England in a single American state. What the hell do you expect? We're a tiny island. People have run from one end to the other in a fortnight.

Yeah true, was just countering the fallacy that there is a massive difference from one UK city to the next

 

[luckyeddie]

Yeah true, was just countering the fallacy that there is a massive difference from one UK city to the next

If you're talking 'cities' on a global scale, there's only one anyway.

 

[Langeveldt]

If you're talking 'cities' on a global scale, there's only one anyway.

yep, Ely

 

[luckyeddie]

yep, Ely

I was thinking more Colchester

 

[Langeveldt]

I was thinking more Colchester

more than a city, to be fair.. You've got to look at the culture in general

 

[C_C]

OK, bottom line.

What are you trying to say - and more to the point, why? Just about every thread you ever contribute to boils down to the same questions about racial diversity and ethnicity. Personally, I don't give a damn about the colour of anyone's skin, and more to the point I care even less about who bonked whom in years gone by.

Incidentally, the local Sikh temple had the best vegetable samosas I've ever tasted. Now THAT's culture.

This has nothing to do with race or ethincity.
What i am trying to say is that which is a fact - that the west is not really very diverse culturally ( some nations are however very diverse racially) and that there are a few nations out there who are far far more culturally diverse than the west...basically correcting Richard on one of his assumptions.
i have not mentioned race in it at all, as cultural diversity is independent and unrelated to racial diversity.This is not about size of an island or area of a nation...for as i've pointed out, there are areas which are smaller than Britain in size but show 2-3 distinct cultural flavourings.
Its about the fundamental aspect of western culture being ' we shall absorb you into our own' instead of 'now we have two cultures'.

 

[BoyBrumby]

yep, Ely

(chest swells with pride at mention of birthplace)

 

[luckyeddie]

This has nothing to do with race or ethincity.
What i am trying to say is that which is a fact - that the west is not really very diverse culturally ( some nations are however very diverse racially) and that there are a few nations out there who are far far more culturally diverse than the west...basically correcting Richard on one of his assumptions.
i have not mentioned race in it at all, as cultural diversity is independent and unrelated to racial diversity.This is not about size of an island or area of a nation...for as i've pointed out, there are areas which are smaller than Britain in size but show 2-3 distinct cultural flavourings.
Its about the fundamental aspect of western culture being ' we shall absorb you into our own' instead of 'now we have two cultures'.

I can see I'm having great trouble in getting any point across - I'll try harder and think this time.

Ok (deep breath).

You seem to be thinking in terms of England, and not the British Isles. This is not surprising - it's a common problem that many people have - until it comes to St Patrick's Day and half of America dress up in green, drink Guinness and make huge donations to the IRA. Strangely enough, the other half of America then eat tatties, neeps and partake of a "Wee dram" when it comes to Burns Night, but pass on the haggis. Who said that Yanks were all thick? I'm sure that you know all about Ceilidhs, Morris Dancing, The Furry Dance, Tissington Well Dressing and Swan Upping, so I won't waste your time any further with that.

Various areas of Britain have been overrun or invaded at various points in the past, but as you so rightly say, those invaders got 'assimilated' (we must be Borg). What you don't seem to appreciate is that that assimilation took (in the case of the Scandinavians) about 1000 years, and you know what? It's still not totally complete. We don't get invaded very often (once a millenium is about right). The reason there are so many separate dialects in Britain is no coincidence - it's because we were essentially an agrarian society with very little 'mixing' (over a long time it's inevitable thogh), consequently so many years later words from foreign languages survive in common usage in one area of the country and not in another. It also explains why people from the north east of England have one eye in the middle of their forehead and still hang monkeys, mistaking them for French spies.

As far as immigration is concerned (as opposed to 'proper' invaders), the first lot to make their way over here were probably the Jewish refugees from eastern Europe at various times over the last 200 years - there aren't many huge Jewish quarters but each city has an area favoured by that culture - Golders Green in north London is probably the area with the highest proportion of Jews in England but I could be mistaken.

The Irish were the next group, fleeing the potato famine of the mid nineteenth century, but again they just integrated fully. I guess if you're hungry, you go to where the food is and don't care about establishing a community. Also, the industrial revolution was in full swing and people went to where the work was (work = money = food). There's a massive Irish influence in places like Liverpool, of course.

Sea trade (as opposed to just military action) meant that we started getting a smattering of people from North Africa, China and India settling around the major ports (Bristol, Portsmouth, Liverpool and London) too as more and more the trade in silks and spices took off, but it wasn't a huge influx. The cultures are there if you know where to look.

The second mass of European jews came in the 1930's and just became part of the already established Jewish quarters.

The next 'invasion' from another culture didn't really arrive until after the Second World War, and that was due to a labour shortage - the 'Windrush' was the advance guard of the West Indians in 1948, and it's to the eternal shame of this country that so many were treated so badly.

So to the 1950's and people leaving the Indian subcontinent. Since then there have been some Vietnamese and of course the people Idi threw out, and more recently another influx from eastern Europe (this time Slavs).

Really, none of the 'modern' invasions have been around long enough and all the old ones took place too long ago to have left traces other than in customs and language. Three generations isn't long enough and fifty is too many.

 

[steds]

Strangely enough, the other half of America then eat tatties, neeps and partake of a "Wee dram" when it comes to Burns Night, but pass on the haggis.

Dan't know what they're missing. Just like black pudding, it is.

 

[C_C]

Really, none of the 'modern' invasions have been around long enough and all the old ones took place too long ago to have left traces other than in customs and language. Three generations isn't long enough and fifty is too many.

I am aware of most of what you say.
I am just stating the obvious - that the culture of the Isles is not very diverse and what many there consider diverse is just a different shade of grey instead of having a much wider spectrum of colours.
In the west, immigrants invariably lose their culture - be it ancient immigrations ( which is why you dont see a nordic culture in Ireland independent of a celtic culture despite the huge presence of Vikings for a few hundred years -instead you have a fused culture that is very similar from one end of ireland to another) or more recent immigrations (where many who immigrated 4-5 generations ago have largely lost their culture).

There were several unique elements that came together in the subcontinent that allowed for its cultural diversity - most importantly large periods ( ie, hundreds of years or almost a millenia in some regions) where culture was never imposed and people were free to do what they want to do. The sheer volume of immigrations also played a big part in it. How long ago the immigration occured seems to be besides the point - for many groups in the subcontinent ( the Gujjars for example) immigrated almost 2000 years ago into their region and remained intact. India doesnt work in the way of absorption of culture...more like flow between two seperate cultures.

The Isles have had many people show up in its history but the culture that exists today or has for the last few hundred years is pretty monotonous with little variations.
Tolerance was a concept that the west didnt understand less than 60-70 years ago and it was 'he who has the bigger guns wipes out all cultures but his own and shoves it down the people's throat' philosophy.
The irish resisted but much of their culture was lost and whats left today are little traces of distinctness.
Its not a question of the size of the british isles, for like i said - you could sqeeze Punjab and Himachal Pradesh into England and they have much more cultural diversity between them than any two region in the british isles.
The difference between English culture and Scottish culture is similar to the difference between south bengal and north bengal - they are still much the same color, just a different shade. I am simply stating what i've seen- that no nation in Europe even remotely approaches the cultural diversity of India or even China.... and this is stated in a matter of fact way to counter Richard's assertion of cultural diversity in UK and to potray to him how its just a drop in the bucket compared to some other regions.
Do you disagree with that ?

 

[luckyeddie]

I am aware of most of what you say.

The difference between English culture and Scottish culture is similar to the difference between south bengal and north bengal - they are still much the same color, just a different shade. I am simply stating what i've seen- that no nation in Europe even remotely approaches the cultural diversity of India or even China.... and this is stated in a matter of fact way to counter Richard's assertion of cultural diversity in UK and to potray to him how its just a drop in the bucket compared to some other regions.

Do you disagree with that ?

No - apart from the fact that the Scots are nowhere near the same colour - they're generally as ginger as Pickup and covered in woad.

One other reason why we have been immune from most foreign influences (invasions by sea apart) is that it's been impossible to walk here since the last ice age.

 

[steds]

No - apart from the fact that the Scots are nowhere near the same colour - they're generally as ginger as Pickup and covered in woad.

that's not a cultural fact. That's a stereotype. I'm disappointed in you, Lucky Edward...

 

[C_C]

No - apart from the fact that the Scots are nowhere near the same colour - they're generally as ginger as Pickup and covered in woad.

One other reason why we have been immune from most foreign influences (invasions by sea apart) is that it's been impossible to walk here since the last ice age.

Its not a question of what color the scots are.
Its their culture - music, literature, art, architecture, value system,etc. etc. As such, there is very little difference between the English and the Scots in that regard...they are practically the same culture today and have been for the past few hundred years and not seperate cultures like the English culture and Spanish culture.
That is the kind of diversity in one nation i am talking about.

 

[luckyeddie]

that's not a cultural fact. That's a stereotype. I'm disappointed in you, Lucky Edward...

Yeah, well, who cares? I have a Scottish grandmother but I have brought shame on those north of the border in general, and the Hagues in particular.

I cheer for England when they play in World Cups.

 

[luckyeddie]

Its not a question of what color the scots are.
Its their culture - music, literature, art, architecture, value system,etc. etc. As such, there is very little difference between the English and the Scots in that regard...they are practically the same culture today and have been for the past few hundred years and not seperate cultures like the English culture and Spanish culture.
That is the kind of diversity in one nation i am talking about.

You missed the point - I was joking about the colour of the Scots.

The usual stereotypical Scot has a redness of hair and a blueness of body, often seen brandishing his weapon in one hand and holding a claymore in the other, generally crying "Freedom" at the top of his voice and then dying.