National or European

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood

Which kind of asks the question that since IF there are aliens out there, since we are all from the 'The Observable Universe' are we not all the same? Where do you draw the line between us and them?

---

Depends on what level of issue you talk about, no?

In an interstellar war I'd be on humanity's side every day of the week. In a racial conflict I'd have no problem popping off some negroes.

National issues is where it starts getting problematic for me. Having double citizenship, it would have to be a fight worth fighting for, for me to join it. Otherwise I'd just happily switch to my second home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Traditionally they have claimed that the people of each separate nation are superior to the rest, but what do you think this embrace of a wider Europe is? It is simply expanding their concept of a 'pure race' to fit all Europeans. Europeans don't share a common language or culture, so what else is there that links them aside from geography? Say what you will, but that's what it looks like to me.

---

This is wrong, essentially because of this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Pretty much every nation claim superiority. What confuse you is that European countries have the ability to claim ethnological superiority, whereas USA can only link their viewed superiority to politics.

This however have absolutely NOTHING to do with a white / non white thing. As a Swedish guy, I see myself having more in common with a guy from Spain (who I perceive as brownish), than an Ukranian, eventhough the Ukranian is way more white.

As to Language, western Europe do share one. Latin, it has set its trace in all the western European languages so they are closely modeled. Learning, say, Spanish is a breeze compared to Russian, as Russian has a whole other language base.

Western Europe also very much have a shared culture, although sometimes on opposing sides in the shared history.

Sorry, but quite often your posts comes off as you sprouting nonsense You made up on a whim, with little or no facts or experience of what you discuss. These last posts were no exception.

---

Kadagar also brings up the important issue of Latinate culture, which is different to what you Americans call "Latin" culture. This is why Western and Northern Europeans identify more with each other than with Slavic Nations, which have far less Letinate culture - mostly because they have an Orthodox rather than a Catholic heritage.

The concept of "race" also means something different to Europeans because we actually come from the places we live in, mostly, so when I talk of "Anglo-Saxons" I don't just mean a genetic component, I mean a shared history and culture which current Anglo-Saxons have ownership of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Having double citizenship, it would have to be a fight worth fighting for, for me to join it. Otherwise I'd just happily switch to my second home.

---

I am Anglo - Scottish. Does that mean I might soon need dual nationality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is wrong, essentially because of this:



Kadagar also brings up the important issue of Latinate culture, which is different to what you Americans call "Latin" culture. This is why Western and Northern Europeans identify more with each other than with Slavic Nations, which have far less Letinate culture - mostly because they have an Orthodox rather than a Catholic heritage.

The concept of "race" also means something different to Europeans because we actually come from the places we live in, mostly, so when I talk of "Anglo-Saxons" I don't just mean a genetic component, I mean a shared history and culture which current Anglo-Saxons have ownership of.

---

lol, Anglo-Saxons didn't just appear in England anymore than any American just appeared in America. They were immigrants/conquerers, the same as Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

lol, Anglo-Saxons didn't just appear in England anymore than any American just appeared in America. They were immigrants/conquerers, the same as Americans.

---

1500 years ago

See the difference?

Also - we've stopped referring o ourselves as "Geats" or "Jutes" or "Anglians".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1500 years ago

See the difference?

Also - we've stopped referring o ourselves as "Geats" or "Jutes" or "Anglians".

---

No, I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

No, I don't.

---

Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

Americans who know nothing about Europe - God save us from the lot of you.

OK - get this - in England if you go 150 miles in any direction you'll wind up in a place where people speak a different dialect, if not language, and have different shaped noses to you.

We are that different. Americans are descended from people who left their homes, Europeans are mostly descended from people who have (more or less) stayed home. It means something to be from somewhere in a way it doesn't, and can't, in the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Traditionally they have claimed that the people of each separate nation are superior to the rest, but what do you think this embrace of a wider Europe is? It is simply expanding their concept of a 'pure race' to fit all Europeans. Europeans don't share a common language or culture, so what else is there that links them aside from geography?Say what you will, but that's what it looks like to me.

---

I don't think you could be further off the mark here, Vuk.

As to your question in bold, you answered it yourself - geography alone means that the European countries have more shared interests in terms of trade, defence etc. Race and even culture doesn't have much to do with it, all that matters is that you are a liberal democracy that accepts human rights etc - this is where some of Turkey's problems come in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

Americans who know nothing about Europe - God save us from the lot of you.

OK - get this - in England if you go 150 miles in any direction you'll wind up in a place where people speak a different dialect, if not language, and have different shaped noses to you.

We are that different. Americans are descended from people who left their homes, Europeans are mostly descended from people who have (more or less) stayed home. It means something to be from somewhere in a way it doesn't, and can't, in the US

---

Oh come off it. I can do the same thing, and I'm in North America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Oh come off it. I can do the same thing, and I'm in North America.

---

In some case, yes, but were those same people there 300 years ago?

There are working farms in the South West, not just big ones, that have been in the same family for 500 years or more.

Any time an American or Canadian comes to the UK to stay they seem stunned by the level of regional variation we have here - and the size of the regions.

In some cases, yes.* There's a town here in NS that was founded over 400 years ago. No one can dispute that Europeans weren't here before 500 years ago. But to say that in those intervening 5 centuries in the places that have had the longest settlement (like the Atlantic coast of North America and the Caribbean) that the kind of regional variation you talk about in Britain doesn't exist is silly. It just covers larger areas most of the time.



*Not me personally though, my moms ancestors didn't leave Cornwall until the 1880's. According to her family stories and my googling of the surname Tippett.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It isn't that we eurorealists don't agree on a common European culture, we just don't believe in the post-nationalist superstate that europhiles want the EU to be.

---

The only one linking this thread to EU-membership is you, frags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only one linking this thread to EU-membership is you, frags.

---

Than I am the only one with some brains, of course it's about EU membership

have long heard that americans abroad are considered arrogant, and believed that consideration well justified. having scanned a bit of this thread it seems some europeans are well equipped to recognize arroance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

have long heard that americans abroad are considered arrogant, and believed that consideration well justified. having scanned a bit of this thread it seems some europeans are well equipped to recognize arroance.

---

Americans are seen as very friendly really, worst are Russians and Israeli tourists

Also Israeli border control. They're the worst.

In any case, most Americans I've met are really really friendly, so I have to go with Frags there. Truly, 'tis a cold day in hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Than I am the only one with some brains, of course it's about EU membership

---

A true sign of a fanatic is that any topic is turned towards the fanatic's favourite topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

In some cases, yes.* There's a town here in NS that was founded over 400 years ago. No one can dispute that Europeans weren't here before 500 years ago. But to say that in those intervening 5 centuries in the places that have had the longest settlement (like the Atlantic coast of North America and the Caribbean) that the kind of regional variation you talk about in Britain doesn't exist is silly. It just covers larger areas most of the time.



*Not me personally though, my moms ancestors didn't leave Cornwall until the 1880's. According to her family stories and my googling of the surname Tippett.

---

Right, over a larger area. Anyway - the point is that Vuk is wrong, and that there is a difference, at a fundamental level between a Frenchman and an Englishman. The area you're talking about would be equivalent to a small country, or at least a region like "the North of England" in Europe. The level of variation, and the sharpness of the divisions is also much more pronounced here - such as the difference between Devon and Cornwall.

Your family left Cornwall, so does that mean they were English?

That's a trick question - anyone called Tippett in the 1880's would have considered themselves to be "Cornish" and more akin to the Welsh than the English. This is the sort of nuance that is completely lost in the US, particularly among "Anglos", where there is massive regional variation in England this doesn't seem to be reflected in the American diaspora.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

have long heard that americans abroad are considered arrogant, and believed that consideration well justified. having scanned a bit of this thread it seems some europeans are well equipped to recognize arroance.

---

Thats because Americans are just well travelled cashed up Europeans. :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Thats because Americans are just well travelled cashed up Europeans. :smoking:

---

Yeah?

Well in that case Ausies are just drunk(er) Englishmen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Right, over a larger area. Anyway - the point is that Vuk is wrong, and that there is a difference, at a fundamental level between a Frenchman and an Englishman. The area you're talking about would be equivalent to a small country, or at least a region like "the North of England" in Europe. The level of variation, and the sharpness of the divisions is also much more pronounced here - such as the difference between Devon and Cornwall.

---

And there is a fundamental difference between and Yank and a Mexican, or a Canadian and a Brazillian, etc. The difference between someone from Northern New Brunswick (Acadians) and Southern New Brunswick (British mix) can be quite pronounced. Hell the difference between myself and my cousins is pronounced, and they're from Southern New Brunswick. And we're all of British stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Your family left Cornwall, so does that mean they were English?

That's a trick question - anyone called Tippett in the 1880's would have considered themselves to be "Cornish" and more akin to the Welsh than the English. This is the sort of nuance that is completely lost in the US, particularly among "Anglos", where there is massive regional variation in England this doesn't seem to be reflected in the American diaspora.

---

My moms family. My fathers surname is Smith, by some miracle my Grandfather managed to track back his paternal line to the Midlands (I think, I saw the work once when I was a teen). I think it did come with them, but then morphed into the regional variations you now see in North America. Like the US south east being settled by Scots. Or Newfoundland being settled by Irish and Scottish.

Example the English found in Newfoundland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m-y-qAbpL0

Where as I sound like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBOZPlH6pTQ

As someone who can trace both surname and leinage back to Devon(funny you brought that up), can I be part of Phillips super secret Anglo club?

I am starting to think the only true Englishman is Phillip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yeah?

Well in that case Ausies are just drunk(er) Englishmen!

---

I resemble that stereotype.

Of course Aussies are more drunk then Englishmen as we have a higher Celtic percentage and northern English and other Vikings. Add to that wealth, weather and work ethic: are all reasons to play hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As someone who can trace both surname and leinage back to Devon(funny you brought that up), can I be part of Phillips super secret Anglo club?

I am starting to think the only true Englishman is Phillip

---

Consdering PVC is an "English" fanatic, you may have a point.
Personally I dont give two tosses, I'm british before I'm English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As someone who can trace both surname and leinage back to Devon(funny you brought that up), can I be part of Phillips super secret Anglo club?

I am starting to think the only true Englishman is Phillip

---

I don't think he argued that other Englishmen are less English, just that they are "other" Englishmen.

To follow up on what he said, on my mother side (parts of) my family has owned and worked the same land since the first church records some 7-800 years ago or so. Family history has it going back way further than that, but that is of course speculation (but then, why would it have started with the Church book keeping?).

I guess Americans just have a hard time understanding the connection to a land, and a culture, that a person can have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A true sign of a fanatic is that any topic is turned towards the fanatic's favourite topic.

---

What do you think the Norwegian minister of foreign affairs who inspired you to start this thread had in mind then?

Oh and that nobel peace price

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only one linking this thread to EU-membership is you, frags.

---

nope, i am 'guilty' of that too:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

I simply do not recognise a sufficiently congruent set of aims and expectations to assent to being governed by the common will of the EU.*

Ergo, I recognise a British identity, and that our neighbours are european's of various flavours.



* This should not need saying, but; this does not mean that we should not strive towards harmonious cooperation and collaboration wherever a common viewpoint will bring a more effective outcome.

---

in fact, it seems pretty fundamental to the basic function of the thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Statement:

One cannot be [insert nationality here] without being European, rather [your nationality here] is how you are European.

For example, I'm Norwegian. I am a European. I cannot be just one of the two, I am Norwegian only as a specific form of European. An Englishman can never be just English, being English is his way of being a European.

Thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

nope, i am 'guilty' of that too:



in fact, it seems pretty fundamental to the basic function of the thread:

---

Oh how could you, and it's your thread Horrie you get to prove us wrong, so do it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As someone who can trace both surname and leinage back to Devon(funny you brought that up), can I be part of Phillips super secret Anglo club?

I am starting to think the only true Englishman is Phillip

---

Now we only need to find that one true scotsman...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

And there is a fundamental difference between and Yank and a Mexican, or a Canadian and a Brazillian, etc. The difference between someone from Northern New Brunswick (Acadians) and Southern New Brunswick (British mix) can be quite pronounced. Hell the difference between myself and my cousins is pronounced, and they're from Southern New Brunswick. And we're all of British stock.


My moms family. My fathers surname is Smith, by some miracle my Grandfather managed to track back his paternal line to the Midlands (I think, I saw the work once when I was a teen). I think it did come with them, but then morphed into the regional variations you now see in North America. Like the US south east being settled by Scots. Or Newfoundland being settled by Irish and Scottish.

---

You're not getting it - Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset are all distinct, similar yes, but still most definitely distinct. That's after modern communications and the internet - as little as 100-150 years ago people in rural Devon could not understand people in rural Cornwall and would be hard pressed to understand people from Somerset. Hell, people here in Exeter sound different from people in North Devon and I sound inestimably different from either with my Surrey-Hampshire borders accent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

As someone who can trace both surname and leinage back to Devon(funny you brought that up), can I be part of Phillips super secret Anglo club?

I am starting to think the only true Englishman is Phillip

---

I dunno, lots of Cornish in Devon - you could be a stealth Celt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I don't think he argued that other Englishmen are less English, just that they are "other" Englishmen.

To follow up on what he said, on my mother side (parts of) my family has owned and worked the same land since the first church records some 7-800 years ago or so. Family history has it going back way further than that, but that is of course speculation (but then, why would it have started with the Church book keeping?).

I guess Americans just have a hard time understanding the connection to a land, and a culture, that a person can have.

---

Bingo - "English" is a political identity - IA and I are both English but we'd be hard pressed to agree on much culturally other than warm beer.

Oh - while we're having a genealogical pissing contest, my cousin Olaf was able to trace the Wallinders as far back as Tord, who built the Church at Byr in Sweden in something like 978 AD.

Quite where Byr is - I couldn't tell you.