Jump to content
Gracii Guns

British Politics

Recommended Posts

Chap on twitter made an extremely good point (that I cannot take credit for). The term ''Little Englander'' referred to anti-Imperialists, Whigish elements of the 19th century manufacturing classes who resented paying taxes to places like Canada and did not want further imperial entanglements - the stance was later adopted by Gladstone who was a reluctant imperialist. 

So which one is it, yokels hankering for the ''days of empire'', or yokels who happen to be ''Little Englanders'' Remainers? It can't be both! Take your pick...

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me laugh. :lol: 

41677496_2270938419796872_37615517066644

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dazey said:

This made me laugh. :lol: 

41677496_2270938419796872_37615517066644

Sounds utterly pompous. Why are multicultural conurbations seen as the form of living now (in remainer parlance)? Most people I know, including someone who lives in London, loath those places and want to ''move to the country''. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with living in an area with a lower demographic - in fact there is much that is preferable such as finer access to natural scenery, more space and cleaner air. There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want) nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Elaborated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Padme said:

It seems Labour/Corbyn want a second referendum or something like it. The only thing for sure is that he is against no deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/corbyn-vows-to-put-sensible-brexit-deal-to-voters-in-referendum

What Corbs wants is a will-o'-the-wisp. Only Corbyn himself, his manhole covers collection and tin of cold beans understands Jez's true positioning on Brexit, and then the manholes and beans have probably forgotten so we are left with only himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BrayWyatt said:

Corbyn is a republican cunt.

In the Fenian sense or in the abolition of monarchy sense? He is both of those so I don't suppose it matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Chap on twitter made an extremely good point (that I cannot take credit for). The term ''Little Englander'' referred to anti-Imperialists, Whigish elements of the 19th century manufacturing classes who resented paying taxes to places like Canada and did not want further imperial entanglements - the stance was later adopted by Gladstone who was a reluctant imperialist. 

So which one is it, yokels hankering for the ''days of empire'', or yokels who happen to be ''Little Englanders'' Remainers? It can't be both! Take your pick...

You are confused by the fact that the meaning of an expression has evolved over the years? How about just going with the contemporary definition?

Here it is: 

Quote

 

Later usage:

The term has been used as a derogatory term for English nationalists or English people who are perceived as xenophobic or overly nationalistic.[5] It has also been applied to opponents of globalism, multilateralism and internationalism.[5][6]

 

Source: wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Sounds utterly pompous. Why are multicultural conurbations seen as the form of living now (in remainer parlance)? Most people I know, including someone who lives in London, loath those places and want to ''move to the country''. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with living in an area with a lower demographic - in fact there is much that is preferable such as finer access to natural scenery, more space and cleaner air. There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want) nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

I don't think you understood the text in Dazey's quote. It wasn't an entry in the argument between city and country, between multiculturalism and monoculturalism, etc, it just pointed out the irony of someone from a more limited cultural experience and background accusing someone living in a metropol for "living in a bubble". Are you triggered this way anyone mentions "London"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want)

Little Englander?

 

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

I suppose you would have preferred to live in the 19th century when other peoples remained in their colonies instead of invading the isles of Great Britain.

And multiculturalism causes multi-ethnic tension? Yeah, and a lot of it is caused by people opposed to other cultures, so kind of circular argumentation… 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Padme said:

It seems Labour/Corbyn want a second referendum or something like it. The only thing for sure is that he is against no deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/corbyn-vows-to-put-sensible-brexit-deal-to-voters-in-referendum

Been the position basically for a year at least. Except reporting of it on tv makes it sound like it's confusing.

You can't stop Brexit without it. There'd be too much backlash of revoking without a referendum. Labour need to win seats and not lose too many.

For the Lib Dems, they don't have anything to lose, since they'll never win a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dazey said:

This made me laugh. :lol: 

41677496_2270938419796872_37615517066644

Snooty Londoners. 

Time to post this again :P

 

Edited by MillionsOfSpiders
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think you understood the text in Dazey's quote. It wasn't an entry in the argument between city and country, between multiculturalism and monoculturalism, etc, it just pointed out the irony of someone from a more limited cultural experience and background accusing someone living in a metropol for "living in a bubble". Are you triggered this way anyone mentions "London"?

Well bubbles can be large and encompass mass conurbations also. When the term bubble is used it usually means you're only seeing things through your own prism which in this case would be the multicultural-conurbation that is Greater London. 

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose you would have preferred to live in the 19th century when other peoples remained in their colonies instead of invading the isles of Great Britain.

I didn't provide you with my own environment preference so this is another straw man but I'll still reply as it demonstrates your utter ignorance of British history as the 19th century was actually a time of immense immigration to Great Britain, Irish, Chinese, Indian, Jewish (escaping eastern pogroms), Italian, German and central European (escaping the 1848 European Revolutions), etc. - and not just confined to London either.  

It would actually be hard to return to a Britain devoid of immigration. The late 18th and early 19th century produces ancien régime refugees (fleeing the Revolution and Bonaparte). The 17th-early 18th centuries produces French Huguenots. The medieval era usually had enclaves of Hanseatic and Scandinavian traders. Etc etc.

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

And multiculturalism causes multi-ethnic tension? Yeah, and a lot of it is caused by people opposed to other cultures, so kind of circular argumentation… 

It is inherent that a community with one ethnicity will avoid ethnic tension. Japan, a relatively homogeneous society, for instance has avoided the type of ethnic conflict seen in Sri Lanka. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

Snooty Londoners. 

Time to post this again :P

 

On the Tube, NONE of them (Londoners) speak. It is the oddest thing ever. They are all sitting there parallel in the carriage and they all attempt to avoid eye contact in the best manner possible, which is now very easy with mobile phones, but other methods involve taking a curious interest in the Tube diagram or advertising above the opposite person's head. But yes, none of them talk. Even if they have friends or relatives haha.

Utterly odd.

In the north we'd have progressed through 10 mins of the weather before (if it is a bloke) getting to the sports scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Sounds utterly pompous. Why are multicultural conurbations seen as the form of living now (in remainer parlance)? Most people I know, including someone who lives in London, loath those places and want to ''move to the country''. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with living in an area with a lower demographic - in fact there is much that is preferable such as finer access to natural scenery, more space and cleaner air. There is (and you can accuse me of all the names you want) nothing intrinsically wrong with living in homogeneous communities and there is much that is fine about such areas such as a shared vernacular making communication easier, and shared cultural values resulting in a lack of multi-ethnic tension. 

You see this is what pisses me off about a lot of people who live in London they claim to know everything there is to know on subject based on the fact they live in London like it's some fucking hub of wonder.

 

I lived in London for years it was a shit hole I moved out learned more moving out than I ever did in London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You are confused by the fact that the meaning of an expression has evolved over the years? How about just going with the contemporary definition?

Here it is: 

Source: wikipedia

Doesn't avoid the fact that the term ''Little Englander'' and ''Imperialist'' are actually opposites. Little Englander implies national insularity - isolation, Sakoku. Empire is inherently global (multi-ethnic, multi-cultural) and impacts the metropole as much as the periphery. Furthermore, for the metropole it creates new challenges and areas of political discourse regarding the allocation of (metropole) resources for (peripheral) defence, upkeep, cultural assimilation and urban planning. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I get to visit England Id go everywhere other than London, ugh.

Multiculturalism is awesome and people can and do get on just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

You see this is what pisses me off about a lot of people who live in London they claim to know everything there is to know on subject based on the fact they live in London like it's some fucking hub of wonder.

 

I lived in London for years it was a shit hole I moved out learned more moving out than I ever did in London

I actually quite like London but crikey, I think I would feel differently if I lived there. It is full of history and superb museums and art galleries. But this is coming from the perspective of a weekend tripper. I'd feel differently if I had to live there and used the tube at rush hour to commute back and forth between the city and some shithole like Shepard's Bush, caked in sweat. 

By the end, the crowds were starting to have a bit of an affect (Soho-Leicester Sq area on Friday night!). Disorientating. People. Sights. Smells. Sensory overload. Made me yearn a bit for somewhere more rural and/or coastal. London fortunately has some beautiful parks to escape to.

The pubs are incredibly packed, aren't they? One of the reasons everyone just spills out onto the street. I must have tried about ten different pubs and was yet to find a quite boozer where I could sit down and read the paper. 

PS

All that architecture they've built in the city is truly appalling, Gherkins and Shards and some abomination which looks like a bunch of rivets stacked ontop of each other. But it is curious as you still find little churches nestled between these abominations which date back to the 17th century. London is a place where the new sits right next to the old in thorough incongruity. 

It is varied enough that you find bits of the city you like, and bits you hate. St Katherine's Dock next to the Tower? That is nice with all the food stalls and a nice pub called the Dickens Inn or something or other. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, soon said:

If I get to visit England Id go everywhere other than London, ugh.

Multiculturalism is awesome and people can and do get on just fine. 

They can and do, but they also can and evidently do not, case in point Sri Lanka, former-Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland (catholic v Anglo-Scottish protestants), Spain (Basque and Catalan v Castille), the United States (Black Americans and the legacy of slavery) and Islamic extremism vis-à-vis white nationalism. Homogeneous societies such as Japan and Korea have avoided religio-ethnic tension, although not ideological tension in the latter example. 

Edited by DieselDaisy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They can and do, but they also can and evidently do not, case in point Sri Lanka, former-Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland (catholic v Anglo-Scottish protestants), Spain (Basque and Catalan v Castille), the United States (Black Americans and the legacy of slavery) and Islamic extremism vis-à-vis white nationalism. Homogeneous societies such as Japan and Korea have avoided religio-ethnic tension, although not ideological tension in the latter example. 

I certainly wouldnt argue the facts in those cases. But it also can be seen as highlighting the diversity of ways that humans find to have conflict over. A propensity for conflict may be a preexisting condition, not one produced by multiculturalism. For example, in a homogenous state there is still spousal abuse and sometimes, legal and human rights disparity. We've even seen upheaval in homogeneous settings where there is violent confrontation over the legality of alcohol. Mennonites shunning people for using a wheel barrel. Its never ending.

Multicultural affirms religious freedoms and seeks to have the class system be merit based. Some of those examples you gave are when outside forces (often colonization and decolonization) lead to hierarchies of favouritism and disenfranchisement. And that lead to destabilization, no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

I certainly wouldnt argue the facts in those cases. But it also can be seen as highlighting the diversity of ways that humans find to have conflict over. A propensity for conflict may be a preexisting condition, not one produced by multiculturalism. For example, in a homogenous state there is still spousal abuse and sometimes, legal and human rights disparity. We've even seen upheaval in homogeneous settings where there is violent confrontation over the legality of alcohol. Mennonites shunning people for using a wheel barrel. Its never ending.

Multicultural affirms religious freedoms and seeks to have the class system be merit based. Some of those examples you gave are when outside forces (often colonization and decolonization) lead to hierarchies of favouritism and disenfranchisement. And that lead to destabilization, no? 

Well you can't blame colonisation on Japan as the Tokugawa Shogunate kicked all of the Europeans out - well, all except the Dutch at Dejima - purged the Japanese Christians who had been proselytised by the Jesuits, and imposed national isolation for over 220 years!

I'm not denying the non-existence of economic and ideological tension in those societies, or tensions based on power and personalities, but a homogeneous society is going to be inherently free from ethnic tension. How would one ''ethnically cleanse'' one's own society afterall when you only possess one ethnicity? You cannot exactly blame the ''Poles taking wos jobs'' when there is no Poles in your country to begin with!

The assumption that homogeneous communities are somehow ''ill'', ''incorrect'', ''in need of reform'' in accordance with multi-cultural values, I find deeply sanctimonious, bigoted and an imposition - a form of cultural cleansing and imperialist values in itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The assumption that homogeneous communities are somehow ''ill'', ''incorrect'', ''in need of reform'' in accordance with multi-cultural values, I find deeply sanctimonious, bigoted and an imposition - a form of cultural cleansing and imperialist values in itself. 

I didnt assume this nor suggest this.

I did point out that the same propensity for conflict exists in both societies, though. So does multiculturalism 'bring conflict" to a land or does it just bring "more of the same" conflict? 

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'm not denying the non-existence of economic and ideological tension in those societies, or tensions based on power and personalities, but a homogeneous society is going to be inherently free from ethnic tension. How would one ''ethnically cleanse'' one's own society afterall when you only possess one ethnicity? You cannot exactly blame the ''Poles taking wos jobs'' when there is no Poles in your country to begin with!

This seems to suggest that racism and xenophobia are engraved in human nature? Anthropology would turn up examples of insular tribal needs in equal measure as the importance of trading with outside tribes and being communal. I would say that the xenophobia of today is produced within the logic of a homogenous society in addition to the divisive nature of capitalist economies and industrial assumptions about 'order.'

And racism exists across borders too. Its not a product of multiculturalism. In fact its something that multiculturalism can fix.

Id point to the overnight rise to fame of former porn actress Mia Khalifa* as evidence that we all like to peak over the fence and see whats good with the neighbours. Multiculturalism embraces our human desire to commune, just as marriage does, imho, and there is conflict in both institutions.

 

*a Lebanese women who wore a hijab in her debut porn video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well bubbles can be large and encompass mass conurbations also. When the term bubble is used it usually means you're only seeing things through your own prism which in this case would be the multicultural-conurbation that is Greater London. 

Living in a bubble is about someone living a secluded life devoid of much impulses ;) Jeez, Daisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't provide you with my own environment preference so this is another straw man

Yeah, right, someone who gets triggered by someone in London being condescending to rural types, and replies by pointing out the beauty of rural region's monoculturalism, doesn't "provide [their] own environment preference" :D I suppose that post of yours was another of the 31,000 posts you have made here that says nothing about you, right? Just an empty thing that cannot be used by readers to ascertain what kind of human you are? How naive are you?

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It would actually be hard to return to a Britain devoid of immigration.

Oh, poor you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is inherent that a community with one ethnicity will avoid ethnic tension. Japan, a relatively homogeneous society, for instance has avoided the type of ethnic conflict seen in Sri Lanka. 

Really, are we having this discussion? You are going to proselytize over the beauties of monoculturalism and ethnically pure societies to me? No, thank you. It's enough to know what you are, I don't need to hear your reasonings for it.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Doesn't avoid the fact that the term ''Little Englander'' and ''Imperialist'' are actually opposites. 

Doesn't change he fact that Little Englander has a very clear meaning today and that you shouldn't be confused by its previous meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×