The St George's flag

First topic message reminder :

I recall all too well as a teenager the England 1966 WC victory over West Germany at Wembley.

It was a less complicated time then. But I don't recall seeing more than a tiny smattering of St George's flags. It was the Union 'Jack' that then prevailed.

And now it's all about local nationality. And the English are no longer exempt.

It's a sad reflection of our times that we've become so symbolistically nationalistic whilst politically and economically we become increasingly intertwined.

I know they were all American born - just that the founding fathers/most influential people would not have passed on any affection for the 'old country'. The English left because of religious persecution. And those of Dutch & German heritage would have had no connection with England whatsoever. Emigrants from Italy & Ireland in particular retained great affection for the 'old country.'

Sin é wrote:I know they were all American born - just that the founding fathers/most influential people would not have passed on any affection for the 'old country'. The English left because of religious persecution. And those of Dutch & German heritage would have had no connection with England whatsoever. Emigrants from Italy & Ireland in particular retained great affection for the 'old country.'

the Founding Fathers tended to come from well to do families looking to make money - they packed the younger sons off to America to make more money. Most of the Founding Fathers had strong connections to the "old country" and didn't want to lose them.. and those of German/ Dutch heritage pretty much didn't exist amongst their numbers, they were almost universally of British descent (try looking at a list of names some time).

Funny how things get the chinese whispers about them.

I punted an innocent St George's flag ball into the air and lo! It descends from the mizzle all covered in shamrock whilst my back was turned.

I love this stuff. Carry on - I can't contribute anything interesting to this debate any more than I could have directly inspired it.

snoopster wrote:

Sin é wrote:I know they were all American born - just that the founding fathers/most influential people would not have passed on any affection for the 'old country'. The English left because of religious persecution. And those of Dutch & German heritage would have had no connection with England whatsoever. Emigrants from Italy & Ireland in particular retained great affection for the 'old country.'

the Founding Fathers tended to come from well to do families looking to make money - they packed the younger sons off to America to make more money. Most of the Founding Fathers had strong connections to the "old country" and didn't want to lose them.. and those of German/ Dutch heritage pretty much didn't exist amongst their numbers, they were almost universally of British descent (try looking at a list of names some time).

All symantics really. The political/upper classes of the USA were WASPs, whose heritage was North Western European (including England) and who were all protestant. Catholics, Jews & Blacks were excluded from this grouping. JFK changed all that in the late 50s, early 60s. Their hobbies and interests (Polo, hunting, golf, tennis etc. would have been some of their sporting interests - so they have still retained that part of their British heritage). They had long left England before Rugby & Soccer were codefied.

The vast majority are of English decent, but for instance, the Roosevelts & Vanderbilts are of Dutch origin. I think many emigrants to USA would have changed/anglicised their names anyway to be more acceptable to the ruling society, so looking at any listing of surnames is meaningless.

Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

I think Portney the term chinese whispers would be considered inappropriate by some. 1 because it's not PC and 2 because it's an indirect insult to the communicative ability of Chinese.
Just a point on the Irish American who considered himself Irish and the difficulty some have with understanding his persective.
If for example he were Chinese instead of American and considered himself Chinese more than American then would that be easier to understand? His appearance would make that separate connection more obvious.
Also I think the idea that nationalism is an outdated concept is difficult to agree with.
Ask Ukranians or Serbians or Timorese about their nationalism. Their recently fighting and dying for their independence (in some cases) would suggest that the valuing of nationalism is as strong as ever in many places. The Maori succesful struggle for recognition in NZ is another sign of the burgeoning movement towards the worlds greater recognition of difference.

Also I understand the largest ethnic group in USA is German followed by Scottish

Portnoy wrote:Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

Portney I think you have just defined the condition of 'Nationalism'.

Spinning historical facts whilst dismissing faults and frailties is hardly unique to the Irish is it?

The Scottish story is actually a sadder one than the Irish potato famine. As the Scottish Clan system was destroyed just after the battle of Culloden and the Highland way of life was exterminated, Kilts, pipes and tartans were all outlawed.

Crofters who had worked the land for generations were forced to work on poorer and poorer lands (those were the lucky ones, the unlucky ones were deported to the "New World").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_clearances

This is the reason that the US and Canada has such a high level of those with Scottish ancestory.

Those days are now long gone and I feel the Union Jack is the Flag that encorporates the whole of the UK. Although to a certain degree, I feel that at an England game the cross of St George should be flown with pride since England has a seperate Identity that it needs (IMO) to discover again.

By all means be proud of our collective history and culture created by Britain, but cherrish your English Heritage too.

Remember England , Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland exited as seperate countries long before the Union was created.

Ireland obviously remains a seperate country and as far as I am led to beleive Scotland will be having a referendum on independence in this term of the Scottish Govermnent since the SNP hold a majority in the holyrood parliament.

Interesting times to come.

Portnoy wrote:Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

I'm not trying to spin Irishness in any positive way - I'm trying to explain why Irish-Americans (and Italian-American, Hispanics etc) were different from Anglo-Americans/Northern Europeans considering we all come from more or less the same gene pool. Culturally, Irish (Italians, Spanish, Hispanics) were Catholic and English, Scottish, Ulster-Scots, Dutch/Northern Europeans were culturally protestant - different Christian sects. While you may think that religion is a lot of rubbish, it does give you a certain outlook on life whether you like it or not, just like Buddhists & Hindus, although having similarities, also have cultural differences even though they maybe from the same gene pool.

Thank nganboy, the concept of Chinese-American seems easier to understand because of the obvious appearance difference.

I know that a lot of modern Americans don't associate themselves with their English heritage as we have been portrayed as the 'baddies' in Holywood for so long.

Lots of the yanks i served with were English by ancestry but but would claim a tenuous Irish or Scottish line instead because of how we were portrayed historically. Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Portnoy wrote:Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

In a word.... no,

Carpe Diem wrote:Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Indeed it does, although sadly most people think it is historicly accurate.

William Wallace was not a merciful man, he was a product of his time. A savage barbarian who fought for the love of his country and it's independence.

Braveheart is a work of fiction based very loosely on historical fact.

Best example : the battle of Stirling bridge one of the most important battles in the wars of independence is fought without a bridge!?

I remember hearing about a Scottish Historian asking Mel Gibson about it.

Historian : Why does the battle of Stirling Bridge take place without a bridge?
Mel : The bridge kind of got in the way.
Historian : Yeah that's what the English said too.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The Scottish story is actually a sadder one than the Irish potato famine. As the Scottish Clan system was destroyed just after the battle of Culloden and the Highland way of life was exterminated, Kilts, pipes and tartans were all outlawed.

Crofters who had worked the land for generations were forced to work on poorer and poorer lands (those were the lucky ones, the unlucky ones were deported to the "New World").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_clearances

This is the reason that the US and Canada has such a high level of those with Scottish ancestory.

Those days are now long gone and I feel the Union Jack is the Flag that encorporates the whole of the UK. Although to a certain degree, I feel that at an England game the cross of St George should be flown with pride since England has a seperate Identity that it needs (IMO) to discover again.

By all means be proud of our collective history and culture created by Britain, but cherrish your English Heritage too.

Remember England , Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland exited as seperate countries long before the Union was created.

Ireland obviously remains a seperate country and as far as I am led to beleive Scotland will be having a referendum on independence in this term of the Scottish Govermnent since the SNP hold a majority in the holyrood parliament.

Interesting times to come.

While I don't want to get into an arguement about who suffered most (both suffered a lot), but can I just correct the point you made about similar things happened in Ireland like the clearances, banning of Irish language, practice of religion etc.

Northern Ireland came into existence in 1921 - over 100 years after the Act of Union. The Cross of St. Patrick (representing the Kingdom of Ireland) should really be taken off the Union Flag

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Indeed it does, although sadly most people think it is historicly accurate.

William Wallace was not a merciful man, he was a product of his time. A savage barbarian who fought for the love of his country and it's independence.

Braveheart is a work of fiction based very loosely on historical fact.

Best example : the battle of Stirling bridge one of the most important battles in the wars of independence is fought without a bridge!?

I remember hearing about a Scottish Historian asking Mel Gibson about it.

Historian : Why does the battle of Stirling Bridge take place without a bridge?
Mel : The bridge kind of got in the way.
Historian : Yeah that's what the English said too.

That's the thing that makes me laugh! Stirling bridge, the tactical genius of that battle just swept aside and replaced with some shouting and blue face paint.

Different times, different standards. Rubbish film, fit French bird.

Carpe Diem wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Indeed it does, although sadly most people think it is historicly accurate.

William Wallace was not a merciful man, he was a product of his time. A savage barbarian who fought for the love of his country and it's independence.

Braveheart is a work of fiction based very loosely on historical fact.

Best example : the battle of Stirling bridge one of the most important battles in the wars of independence is fought without a bridge!?

I remember hearing about a Scottish Historian asking Mel Gibson about it.

Historian : Why does the battle of Stirling Bridge take place without a bridge?
Mel : The bridge kind of got in the way.
Historian : Yeah that's what the English said too.

That's the thing that makes me laugh! Stirling bridge, the tactical genius of that battle just swept aside and replaced with some shouting and blue face paint.

Different times, different standards. Rubbish film, fit French bird.

And the fit French bird was an addition for the movie - when Wallace was executed she was actually 12 years old and still living in France

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Indeed it does, although sadly most people think it is historicly accurate.

William Wallace was not a merciful man, he was a product of his time. A savage barbarian who fought for the love of his country and it's independence.

Braveheart is a work of fiction based very loosely on historical fact.

Best example : the battle of Stirling bridge one of the most important battles in the wars of independence is fought without a bridge!?

I remember hearing about a Scottish Historian asking Mel Gibson about it.

Historian : Why does the battle of Stirling Bridge take place without a bridge?
Mel : The bridge kind of got in the way.
Historian : Yeah that's what the English said too.

That's the thing that makes me laugh! Stirling bridge, the tactical genius of that battle just swept aside and replaced with some shouting and blue face paint.

Different times, different standards. Rubbish film, fit French bird.

And the fit French bird was an addition for the move - when Wallace was executed she was actually 12 years old and still living in France

Screw history more fit birds!

Enjoyable film I would say, but it is a work of fiction rather than a Historical epic.

Sin é I stand corrected mate. I think what I was trying to say but did it poorly is that Scotland's case is sadder because the oppression Scotland suffered was more successful in destroying the Highland way of life.

Scots Gaelic is a dying Language here compared to Ireland and Wales where their native laguages are still widely spoken, although hopefully this is changing. Also the fact that Ireland retains it's sporting heritage through Hurling and Gaelic football.

I personally have not made my mind up about full Scottish independence, mainly because I'm not 100% convinced it is to the benfit of Scotland or the rest of the UK, but I am happy that the SNP are trying their best to raise the profile of Scotland with events like The homecoming . As I said previously though, having an Identity to relate to is very important and the countries within the UK are no differant.

I'm a proud Scotsman but very rarely consider myself "British" mainly because the idea of being British is too closley linked to being English (shared anthem, majority of the population). Although I find myself supporting British interests in the Olympics, F1, Tennis etc.

Interesting discussion - again.

I believe there has been a negative undercurrent throughout much of America against England for a long time. But this has been virtually undone and reversed by the two massive wars in the 20th century and maintaining what I still would describe as that 'special relationship'.

Originally, the settlers who came to America were people who were English political opponents of the crown, debtors, petty criminals (before Botany Bay, Aus, they were sent to America), the religious fanatics who wanted religious freedom for themselves (but, of course, not for anyone else, the Pilgrims and Puritans), and a few Utopians. Other settlers at the time were mostly Germans. Then, slightly later came the influx of the Scottish with their political opponents, petty criminals, the dispossessed and the like.

American political and social institutions developed behind a period when England had little real involvement during the Civil War and Cromwell's rule. By the time England re-involved herself, things were moving quickly onwards. But America developed differently in different regions, with the Northeast, mostly merchants, retaining close ties to England, before and after the War. The rest moved away to other parts, which, I think, is why we see such drastically different cultures, opinions, and world views from different parts of the US.

It was after they become independent that there was the big influx of Irish, mostly in the 1800s, for the reasons we all know. Then followed the Scandinavians, and later the Eastern Europeans, and so on. So, negative opinions were thoroughly ingrained since so many people who went over had truly and violently suffered.

I think most of the traditions were brought over, but separated by 3000 miles and more they evolved, especially in contact with other people. The only negative view of the English left is of the pinky finger in the air, effete tea drinker. WW1 and, especially WW2, went a long way to re-center the view.

All interesting stuff, eh?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Braveheart has a lot to answer for!

Indeed it does, although sadly most people think it is historicly accurate.

William Wallace was not a merciful man, he was a product of his time. A savage barbarian who fought for the love of his country and it's independence.

Braveheart is a work of fiction based very loosely on historical fact.

Best example : the battle of Stirling bridge one of the most important battles in the wars of independence is fought without a bridge!?

I remember hearing about a Scottish Historian asking Mel Gibson about it.

Historian : Why does the battle of Stirling Bridge take place without a bridge?
Mel : The bridge kind of got in the way.
Historian : Yeah that's what the English said too.

A lot of Braveheart was filmed in Wicklow National Park (Ireland). I remember seeing all the sets & horses all over the place. I suppose there was a limit on what they would let them recreate in a National Park - maybe Sterling Bridge was a bridge too far

Of course Mel Gibson has Irish heritage - he is named after a church (St. Mel's Cathedral) in Longford, Ireland, where his mother came from, so the English were always going to get a right doing over from him!

He did the same in The Patriot.

Nobody really escapes Mel Gibson's wrath.

I also found the Patriot entertaining..... he may be a lunatic with a habit of distorting the facts but the man is a good story teller!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Nobody really escapes Mel Gibson's wrath.

I also found the Patriot entertaining..... he may be a lunatic with a habit of distorting the facts but the man is a good story teller!

He is to be fair. I liked both films too

Mel Gibson claims ancestry from all other the place. However, I would think that most nations would want to disassociate themselves from this dreadful excuse for a human being. Seems the only person who likes him these days is Jodie Foster.

Portnoy wrote:Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

I owe an apology.

I was up nearly all night with a very bad back. I regretted sending that post as soon as I hit the enter key.

Grumpy and ill-considered.

But not without a grain of truth - as pointed out: but at nationalists of any persuasion, not 'the Irish'.
Sorry about that.

doctor_grey wrote:
I believe there has been a negative undercurrent throughout much of America against England for a long time. But this has been virtually undone and reversed by the two massive wars in the 20th century and maintaining what I still would describe as that 'special relationship'.

The "special relationship" is(was) with Britain and not "England". Plenty of Welsh, Scots and Irish layed down their lives in those 20th century wars and continue to do so in the 21st century ones too.

The fact that so many people inaccurately refer to England and Britain as the same thing (including many English themselves) goes some way to explain why the other smaller countries within the UK feel the need to express and celebrate an independent culture and idenditity.

I love the USA and have been on holiday there frequently, although nothing grinds my gears more when I say I'm from Scotland, only for an American to say "yeah North England"

This kind of goes back to the idea of the original poster where the lines between England and Britain have become so blurred that they are seen as the same enity by just about everyone.

Portnoy wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Sin é,

Could it be argued that the condition of 'Irishness' can be defined as a tendency to spin any historical fact or incident to positive advantage (whilst dismissing faults and frailties to the unspoken naughty step)?

I owe an apology.

I was up nearly all night with a very bad back. I regretted sending that post as soon as I hit the enter key.

Grumpy and ill-considered.

But not without a grain of truth - as pointed out: but at nationalists of any persuasion, not 'the Irish'.
Sorry about that.

No apology necessary (though thanks for making it anyway).

when I say I'm from Scotland, only for an American to say "yeah North England"

Hah!

Think yourself lucky, the Southern English based media still insist that Hadrians Wall is the border and therefore a rather large English county is lost to Scotland without a fight.

roddersm wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
I believe there has been a negative undercurrent throughout much of America against England for a long time. But this has been virtually undone and reversed by the two massive wars in the 20th century and maintaining what I still would describe as that 'special relationship'.

The "special relationship" is(was) with Britain and not "England". Plenty of Welsh, Scots and Irish layed down their lives in those 20th century wars and continue to do so in the 21st century ones too.

The fact that so many people inaccurately refer to England and Britain as the same thing (including many English themselves) goes some way to explain why the other smaller countries within the UK feel the need to express and celebrate an independent culture and idenditity.

But the point was attitudes towards England have changed recently. The fact other parts of the UK were just as involved doesn't change that. He didn't say ONLY England fought in the wars or that the special relationship was ONLY with England.

Out of curiousity who was responsible for the clearing of the highlands? That link suggests part of the problem was difference in Scots Law for protection of tenants. Quite often it's the landowners/gentry who are the opressors and they're generally considered English (unless they were 'good' ones) even whe they were French.

The English can play the 'we were opressed' card as well. The ruling classes have generally opressed everyone, who ever they are or where ever they came from.

Thanks, Hammer.
In absolutely no way did I mean to imply that only England fought in those wars. Only that the special relationship has gone a long way to reverse the negative impression of England. They always have, and still lean favourably towards Ireland and Scotland.

Its funny RuggerRadge, I have never heard an American refer to Scotland as 'North England'. More likely, they have only a faint notion where Scotland actually is.

The English can play the 'we were opressed' card as well. The ruling classes have generally oppressed everyone, who ever they are or where ever they came from.

Never a truer word spoken. Central Authority does not take into account the well being of the general population when considering what’s ‘good’ for the country. The Highland Clearances were only a repeat of what happened in England in Tudor times and were done for exactly the same motives – profit. It might seem that the Highland Clearances are more poignant as they were more recent, and became the subject of tear jerking Victorian artists, but whether you’re a 16th Century Englishman or a 18th Century Scot, it’s still a bit of a body blow to be ejected from your home.

I spent a lot of time in the US when I was in the RN and most were keen to potray themselves with Irish ancestry. Due to the fact they once tasted a guiness, found it vile, then quickly returning to their bud lite!

Sin é wrote:All symantics really. The political/upper classes of the USA were WASPs, whose heritage was North Western European (including England) and who were all protestant. Catholics, Jews & Blacks were excluded from this grouping. JFK changed all that in the late 50s, early 60s. Their hobbies and interests (Polo, hunting, golf, tennis etc. would have been some of their sporting interests - so they have still retained that part of their British heritage). They had long left England before Rugby & Soccer were codefied.

Again with a something I'm not even debating for or against....

Sin é wrote:The vast majority are of English decent, but for instance, the Roosevelts & Vanderbilts are of Dutch origin. I think many emigrants to USA would have changed/anglicised their names anyway to be more acceptable to the ruling society, so looking at any listing of surnames is meaningless.

The Roosevelts and Vanderbilts weren't amongst the Founding Fathers though, so they don't come into this. As for changing the surnames - there very probably were people who did... but the only value of your repeated mentions of the Roosevelts and Vanderbilts is that it makes the point that it was hardly uncommon not to.
To be honest, it is a generally accepted fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers were of English descent... and further that they still felt kinship with England - for most they didn't fight to become a Republic but rather to gain greater self goverance while remaining subjects of their King.

To my knowledge (and I don't possess even an O-level in history but I'll bother on regardless) the Highland clearances and the Enclosure Acts were pretty similar.

Moneyed people shafted the poor.

Of course the nationalists will explore their heritage. But just like in Belsen it was local labour that did the bad stuff.

Thunor who is playing the"oppressed card"? Of course the vast majority of English people weren't involved in oppressing anyone but the reality of Nationalism is that generalisations and cultural stereotypes are applied, often inaccurately, to people based on were they are from.

Britain is(was) a colonial power and therefore there will always be those, particularly those in countries which were/are colonised against their will who will have a negative view of what Britain stands for. This is not unique to Britain or the English.

For example I think you'll find that the vast majority of Irish people weren't involved in or supportive of an IRA bombing campaign however many people still have this perception, particularlyin the UK. A lot of English people still have negative perceptions and distrust of the Germans because of the 20th century wars mentioned earlier. Views of the US have changed in recent times despite the fact that a large proportion of Americans were not supportive of their goverments forgeign policy.

At the end of the day if people want to wave and define themselves by a flag then they need to accept that not everyone will have the same perception of what that flag stands for.

[quote="roddersm "]For example I think you'll find that the vast majority of Irish people weren't involved in or supportive of an IRA bombing campaign however many people still have this perception, particularlyin the UK. A lot of English people still have negative perceptions and distrust of the Germans because of the 20th century wars mentioned earlier. Views of the US have changed in recent times despite the fact that a large proportion of Americans were not supportive of their goverments forgeign policy.quote]

Beign English and living all my life in England, I've never noticed much of either. It is hard to live anywhere in the UK and not know someone who is either Irish or of very direct Irish descent, which makes it hard to seriously see the Irish as mostly in with the IRA.
And in terms of Germany, I've only met one person who holds that view of Germans - a friend's elderly grandmother who said she could forgive them for WWI because everyone makes mistakes but never for doing it again.
All anecdotal evidence though, as I guess your's is?

snoopster wrote:
All anecdotal evidence though, as I guess your's is?

Absolutely it is, as is the view that Americans or any other nation have a certain view of the English.

"Heal the wooooooorld, make it a better plaaaaaace, for me and for you and the en-tire human raaaaaaace......." etc

roddersm wrote:Absolutely it is, as is the view that Americans or any other nation have a certain view of the English.

Fair point

Need I say more
https://youtu.be/Af51Y-ZmzVE
Never a truer word spoken in jest

snoopster wrote:

Sin é wrote:All symantics really. The political/upper classes of the USA were WASPs, whose heritage was North Western European (including England) and who were all protestant. Catholics, Jews & Blacks were excluded from this grouping. JFK changed all that in the late 50s, early 60s. Their hobbies and interests (Polo, hunting, golf, tennis etc. would have been some of their sporting interests - so they have still retained that part of their British heritage). They had long left England before Rugby & Soccer were codefied.

Again with a something I'm not even debating for or against....

Sin é wrote:The vast majority are of English decent, but for instance, the Roosevelts & Vanderbilts are of Dutch origin. I think many emigrants to USA would have changed/anglicised their names anyway to be more acceptable to the ruling society, so looking at any listing of surnames is meaningless.

The Roosevelts and Vanderbilts weren't amongst the Founding Fathers though, so they don't come into this. As for changing the surnames - there very probably were people who did... but the only value of your repeated mentions of the Roosevelts and Vanderbilts is that it makes the point that it was hardly uncommon not to.
To be honest, it is a generally accepted fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers were of English descent... and further that they still felt kinship with England - for most they didn't fight to become a Republic but rather to gain greater self goverance while remaining subjects of their King.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but there was a Dutch influnce as well, bearing in mind that New Amsterdam's (later to become New York) last governer was a man named Peter Stuyvesant another familiar name around the streets of New York. I'm sure many of the Dutch remained trading from New York would have assimilated with those of English heritage and wouldn't have been broken hearted about breaking the ties with mother England.

Pennsylvania Dutch etc

Carpe Diem wrote:Pennsylvania Dutch etc

True. Though they are actually of German stock - "Dutch" was a corruption of "Deutsch"

Funny, this. In the American War of Independence, New York was steadfastly in the Loyalist (Royalist) camp. They were most reliant on trade, and most trade was with the Mother Country. And today, New York probably still feel the closest to the UK of any part of the US.

The Irish connection in America is also strange. So many people do feel connected with Ireland, even if they have an Irish great-great-grandfather. But Ireland better watch out: As a good number of Americans do have an Irish grandparent, sooner or later someone will get the bright idea they can come barnstorming across and qualify for the Ireland RWC squad.......

doctor_grey wrote: And today, New York probably still feel the closest to the UK of any part of the US.

That's because New York is still in the same spot...

The Irish/ American connection isn't weird at all as there has been waves of Irish immigration to America throughout the last few centuries and remember Ireland is geographically the closest place to America in Europe and seperated only by the Atlantic. The Irish make up a significant voting population in the US hence they have a lot of political influence there.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:Pennsylvania Dutch etc

True. Though they are actually of German stock - "Dutch" was a corruption of "Deutsch"

Quite so!

Rodders, sorry, probably a poor choice of phrase. I was getting at the fact all peoples have been oppressed by the ruling classes.

Sin é wrote:I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but there was a Dutch influnce as well, bearing in mind that New Amsterdam's (later to become New York) last governer was a man named Peter Stuyvesant another familiar name around the streets of New York. I'm sure many of the Dutch remained trading from New York would have assimilated with those of English heritage and wouldn't have been broken hearted about breaking the ties with mother England.

There was a Dutch influence but it was very limited - and in terms of being glad to see the breaking of ties with England, as someone has pointed out with New York being a major loyalist base in the war. Post war the first governor of New York state was George Clinton, whose parents came from England, he was a former British army officer and sided with the rebels out for political reasons - he strongly opposed the British Tory government in power (a motivation he shared with many other key figures in the revolution and in fact with liberals (Whigs) in the UK). It is a massive mistake to see the American Revolution as a war motivated by independence from start to finish - it was a revolution against the government of the day, not the King.

There are a few interesting things that i'm gleaning (right word?) from this thread but i want to check sure if i'm correct.

Do people from Britain now feel that saying/being obliged by passports to say that they're British, is a kind of denial of their nationality? ie if you're Welsh but are called British do you feel that this is not acknowledging your Welshness or even denying your Welshness? Would you feel inclined to mention that "i'm from Wales actually" if someone refers to you as British? (one poster mentioned this)

Do English people not have this issue?

There seems to be agreement that because Englishness (being the largest population with the most political power) or English traits/sports/language/customs are dominant throughout Britain that differentiating between being English and British seemed/seems pointless.

Going back to the original post using the flag as proof English people seem to differentiate more now between being British and being English and identify more with the latter.

There are two reasons that i can see could have caused this difference between the 1960s and now.
1. Is this because their neighbours started waving their own flags more since then? ie if the Scots didn't start flying their own flag and singing their own anthem (1990 i think for flower of Scotland) would the English have bothered to start waving the St Georges flag? Has the increase of nationalism in Celtic countries brought about a rise in English nationalism? Or....
2. would this have occurred anyway because being British has become so inclusive a term that it no longer provides a sense of belonging to anything in particular/provides a strong sense of identity.

Intotouch wrote:Do English people not have this issue?

Do I have a problem with an official document having the official name of my nation on it? No, not really. I think on the recent census there was a bit where you put your nationality and it had British, English, Welsh, etc as options.