Why are the English viewed through retrospective glasses?

Post Reply New Topic

What I'm talking about is rhetoric which views English as if we still hold the views an behavior of the 15-19th century, whilst other countries and peoples are treated like the modern populations they are.

Of course this is not everyone, but there is still a popular perception of English as protagonist/villain, not necessarily a balanced historical view either. This is reflected in films, and tv, and general widely held perception of Englishness.

There is also a confusion between British and English, though I can sort of understand why that is. For some there is no differnce between English and British.

I just wonder if this is really proportional, especially in modern terms, and also fair to lump all the English in this group.

I have a theory. We are as a culture are very self deprecating, we tend to draw attention to past failures and injustices and freely admit it. Nothing wrong with that, it is better than glossing over it. But we are bad at drawing a distinction when it come to the modern demographic.

This is not to excuse the past, which was brutal at times, there is no denying it. I'm just concerned that the colonial rhetoric is being used to excuse other modern ill, it is convenient to have a scapegoat to blame things on, For instance Mugabe, has used this to great effect. If there are problem it can't be becuase of his policies, it is the evil colonialists.

Whist the British were major powers, slave traders etc. They were far from the only. Pretty much most of western Europe was involved in this, and could be equally as brutal. It was the done thing, every country wanted in. Then you have the Ottomans, Emirates/Maghreb, Genghis Khan, USSR, some of which is still continuing to this day.

One of the perceptions is were were the biggest, facilitators of slavery. Yet people forget about North African, Arab, Eastern Europe, Russia and countless other examples.

People also forget the positives we brought to the world. Such as Parliamentary System, English Law, Transport infrastructure and education. Many of the colonist provided little if any of that. I'm not saying colonialism is good, i say ing one you get past colonialism, there is a legacy, and not all of the legacy is bad.

We may have be one of the biggest transporters and traders of slaves, especially across the sea. On the other hand the US, for example, ran effective breading program, easily contends withe English/British. It is said the US outstripped the English and British in terms of revenue. The reason is they didn't need to import them that much, they had more homegrown slaves, the economy at one point spanned everything from small holding to major plantations. It wasn't simply the richest who were owners. In fact when you look at the Carolinas, Virginias ,etc, the farms were often actually quite small, but there were a lot of them. it also went on for a longer time at this level, becuase emancipation came later. There was also a longer transition period between the start of abolition to full abolition.

Of course the British did use indentured Labour too. Arguably the Chinese workers that built the railways in the US are also an example of indentured Labour. Then afterwards they were stigmatized as the "Yellow Peril". Nevertheless the US got over its difficult period, and this is viewed as part of the history, but not representative of views today. Full universal suffrage was only achieved in the 1960s in the states.

Regardless it would be completely wrong for me to hold modern Americans to account for action they had no involvement in, simply for this past.

My other theory, is for some countries that last serious interaction with us was antagonistic, and becuase that history is part of their cultural identity, we are sort of frozen in time, from that point onwards.

I agree with much of this and it does bug me occasionally. I think part of it is that the Empire lasted a very long time and was very dominant and many countries had similar experiences of it. In some ways as great as I think it is, the Commonwealth and the Queen remaining as Head of State in many of these countries (by their choice) perpetuates what is now a mythical view.

As you say almost no one in the UK can identify with this old English persona.

Edit: I've left it in but I'd ignore what I've written in Italics, it goes off on too much of a tangent from the OP and is just a bit of an irrelevant brain dump.


I also agree with what you say about being self deprecating. As a general rule when we screw up, we say it and try and fix it. Years ago Each week we'd report backup failures in IT, to review process etc. Every week we would have two or three and get a kicking for it. Very occasionally another country would report an error. In the US they didn't have a single failure for around two years. That was until some crucial data went missing and it transpired they haven't had a successful backup in that time and knew about it. We Then did a detailed review and found out they were not the only ones misreporting en masse. Simply speaking they were scared of the consequences reporting failure where as we were scared of the consequences of not reporting the same failure. It's an interesting mindset difference, I'm not entirely sure where it comes from but perhaps this colonial hangover explains some of it.

There also seemed to be a reluctance to reach out to the UK sites for help. Again I'm not sure where this comes from as we were always helpful when needed and never critical, let's face it IT isn't easy. I speak in general of course, is there is always the odd idiot. For example the two-year backup problem that they had wasted hundreds of man hours trying to fix I resolved in five minutes. I'm no genius but I was the subject matter expert and it was known that I managed to get myself some unofficial vendor training and technology involvement. It was actually quite simple but was one of those undocumented features. So why not come to me? I use it as an example but there are plenty more similar cases that didn't involve me. It's just that we Brits or rather English seem to be viewed as unapproachable.

Interesting stuff, you've got my brain racing on this now. I had intended to just say 'I agree'.

Last edited by Statto on 19 Sep 2014, 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like the saying goes real failure is not trying something that may not work, real failure is continuing to try the same thing that does not work

However there is a differnce between optimistic embrace of failure, and putting yourself down. I think a balance has to be struck.

From my perspective as programmer, is a bout getting clients to be realistic about outcomes.

It would be good to get a perspective from people outside the UK as this is really were I think the perception lies.

I'm a USA person.

Have many thoughts on different aspects of this complicated and broad topic.

The British Empire has alot to answer for. But it also has alot to be proud of.
I think that you have an exagerrated idea how much resentment is directed at England. And such resentment that exists is not directed at you (the OP) personally. So dont take it personally.

We USA people cant condemn you all for slavery. The British Empire outlawed slavery before even our northern Yankee states outlawed it. Slavery probably wouldve ended sooner here in the colonies if you guys had won- and we had stayed colonies ( thats a dirty little secret about our revolution that it pains me to point out) !

I am a bit unusual for an American in one respect: was a geography/map geek since childhood. So I am the rare American who knows that "England" and "Britain" are NOT the same thing. And I share your annoyance at those who use the terms "English" and "British" interchangeably.

But to conclude: if you're embarrassed about being of English ethnicity take heart! It could be worse.

A famous American pundit named Roy Blount Jr. wrote a witty op ed in the Washington Post about how his family is from England, but his surname is not Anglo Saxon, but "Norman". He lamented the fact that "if you're Anglo-Saxon atleast you have a connection to the soil of England".

Blount's Norman ancestors conquered you Anglo Saxons in 1066 and are still the aristocracy in the UK. Blount points out that the English were the oppressors of the world, but "we Normans were the oppressors of the oppressors!".

So...atleast you're not a Norman!

Lol!

I blame Mel Gibson.

Me, my last name is Norman-Irish, but is also a common English word, so it's like you don' t know. The word was used as a title for "governor" at one point, but it is not used for that purpose anymore.

Can anyone guess the surname?

I don't actually take this personally at all I'm pretty think skinned.

I do think it matters though, you are educated people, but some are impressionable less discerning.

This is kind of narrative, although vague, that is sort of believable. It is quite easy to cherry pick and to compress parts of history.

I didn't want this to be just about our relations with the rest of the of the UK, becuase I think it is broader than that.

My surname is actually Welsh so I'm Welsh/English I suppose, the Welsh being more pre Anglo-Saxon. In fact you could say they are more pre Anglo-Saxon than many of Scottish, becuase the Northumbrian Kingdom's influence right up the east side of scotland right of to very northern isles. Scots (not Gaelic), is derived from Northumbrian English a Germanic language.

Scotland also has Gaels from Ireland. They superseded the Picts. Then there was Viking Invasions too. This also happened in England for example York. For a time we even had a Viking King Cnut the Great and we only regained Anglo-Saxon kings 30 years later. Then the Norman hit us.

Given the influence of the Norman gentry, we never really were ruled by Anglo-Saxon since.

Æthelstan was the first true King of England, uniting the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Alfred the Great was his grandfather.

Normans are basically descendents of Vikings, although Viking didn't have the concept chivalry (which literally means "horse soldiery") but of course is moral/social code.

well, as I have experienced the english in the 2.5 years I spent in London, there's a strange gap between what the UK once was, and what happend to it in 20th century, and where the rest of the world is standing now.

I mean: yes, the UK once was a mighty empire. It brought innovations to the world. Then the world went on to refine these innovations, whereas the Empire fell apart.

well- that's a funny one. because when you come to the UK, its society feels incredibly...Dickensian. The class system seems as healthy as ever, the xenophobia obvious.
Yes, the british abolished slavery, but centuries later, it seems at every college-ceremony (I went there to study) I attended, the waiters were all black. The security personnel and the woodshop personnel were all black. So was the kitchen staff. And exactly 2 studetns, of 1300, and one teacher.
I have met more than one Englishman who actually, deeply prefers a miserable local pub to a nice cafe, calling the latter snobbish and french [sic].
A lot of social revolutions swept the world starting in the UK, but it feels like in the UK, these revolutions stayed confined to the pivacy of people's homes.
Yes, there's now the freedom to dress whichever way one wants, but not the acceptance of someone extravangantly dressed in the upper ranks of society.
Official rules appered to rarely be the actual rules invoked, thus rendering the actual, implict and unoutspoken rules unchallengeable.

As a journalist in a major german newspaper once wrote: "I'm always impressed by this sense unique to the British people, that, though things may seem better and more comfortable, more modern or less complicated in other parts of the world, the way they, the British go about doing things, was the RIGHT way."

I'm sorry, I don't want to insult anyone, but British people made me downright angry with their strange mixture of pride of past glory and defeat towards modernisation, and at the same time sticking with traditions while putting themselves down over the stupidity of these....
It was a bad place for an Aspie, I tell you.

When was this? 1975?

As an American, I just wanted to say:

I understand that England alone is not the United Kingdom as a whole. And I can understand why the Scottish, some Northern Irish, and even the Welsh may sidestep being called British. But I find it odd when Englishmen themselves avoid the term. I can understand within the context of the British Isles why you may specify your Englishness, but when talking with those outside the isles, I don't understand why you avoid calling yourself British. England is the nucleus and dominant player in the UK.

And on the converse, though England is/was the dominant party in the UK, to say things like "what the English did," or "the English Navy," are technically misnomers as its all the British domain, and you're actually overlooking the fact that Scotland, Wales, and Norther Ireland (or all of Ireland depending) are equally British. Why are the English shirking their Britishness?

This is an honest question and something I'm curious about as an American. (Yes, American, not "USA person," c'mon).

My surname is from an ancient Saxon dialect, from before Anglo-Saxon was a thing. It apparently has it's roots in Gothic, but was translated over. The name means "Immortal" and was apparently a title given to a Saxon chieftain who was probably very successful at not dying in battle. Afterwards, it was eventually accepted as a name in some variants of the Gaelic Languages. It is not a rare surname, but it isn't very common either. Different versions of the name are now common in several languages after William the Conquerer.

We're to be ashamed to be British. Unless it's for sports, nationalism is generally seen as a bad thing. It's seen as extremist to be proud of who you are and where you're from. The Scottish and Welsh are allowed to embrace nationalism to an extent and they've been given an easier time, but much of it is because all but the most anodyne and tame forms of Britishness have been made toxic.

Oh, and I would say that when people say "what the English did", they should really include the Irish as it was part of the UK for 121 years (1800-1921).

Most of the worst rhetoric comes from people like the more bigoted of the Scottish and Irish nationalists, nationalist Spaniards and Argentinians, people like that. Mainly people with an axe to grind against us for standing up for our people.

I think that you're a bit confused.

The Welsh, and the Scots DON'T "sidestep being called 'British'". Thats exactly what they WANNA be called. Thats the whole point. What they resent being called is "English".



The reason being that all three ethnic groups (Welsh, Scots, English) are "British" ( ie live in parts of the physical island called "Britain"), but only the English are "English". And the fact that the English dominated the island in the last few centuries makes the other two groups prickly about the term. England is a subdivision of Britain, as is Scotland, and Wales. It is not the whole island. So the Welsh, and Scots, would have you use the term "English" only when you DONT mean Scotsmen, or Welshmen! If you're lumping em all together calling them all "Brits" is fine.

My American brain is spinning. I need a Venn diagram.