On 21 Jul 2004 15:24:09 -0700, (Nick) wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote:
After all, how many of us Brits would recognise the flag of California?

If Arnold Schwarzenegger can do it, then how hard could it be? :-)

But he has a little computer in his brain for selecting answers to questions.
a) California
b) Quebec
c) **** you asshole

My humourous remark about Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California,
and California's flag has a point that seems too subtle for John Rowland.

Or, more likely, Rowland's humorous reference to a scene in the first
"Terminator" movie was too subtle for Nick...

(Doctor SBD) wrote in message ...
Nick wrote:
No, the official name, the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland', implies that Northern Ireland is *not* a part of Great Britain.

All of Ireland belongs to Ireland, occupation forces notwithstanding.

That's a familiar statement of Irish nationalist rhetoric, which, however,
could be motivated in part by some misperceptions of Irish realities.

A sufferer of the Irish diaspora,
SBD

I have an Irish friend who's a supporter of a unified Ireland, a pacifist,
and a harsh critic of the IRA. He has relatives who live on a farm in
Northern Ireland next to the border with the Republic of Ireland. His
relatives there traditionally have supported Sinn Fein (indeed, one of
his distant cousins has been imprisoned for being a member of the IRA).
My friend told me about one of his visits to his relatives there.
As his car approached their farm, he was suddenly stopped by some British
soldiers who apparently had been lying in wait for someone to appear.
After the soldiers heard that he did not have a local accent, they relaxed
somewhat and treated him civilly enough when he showed his identification.
At the farm, his relatives explained to him that some British soldiers
recently had been killed nearby by what was suspected to be an IRA sniper
operating from across the border in the Republic of Ireland, so the British
soldiers who had stopped him were understandably on full alert.

My friend believes that the chief impediment to an eventually unified Ireland
(which he favours) is not the British military presence in Northern Ireland,
but the Irish nationalists' inability to obtain the consent (which should
require gaining some trust first) of the unionist majority in Northern Ireland.
He believes that most of the romantic Irish nationalist rhetoric of the past
is not relevant, if not also counter-productive, to the practical measures
needed now to build a peaceful future for both Irish communities together.

According to Ed Moloney, an Irish journalist based in New York City,
sometime in 1980s Gerry Adams (the leader of Sinn Fein) secretly wrote a
letter to the British government, asking six questions about its intentions
in Ireland.

"Taken at face, the questions contained nothing that any of Gerry Adams's
IRA colleagues could have quarreled with. They were all seemingly embedded
in traditional IRA dogma, all apparently predicated upon the analysis that
Britain's presence in Northern Ireland prevented the Irish people as a whole
from freely deciding their own future. But the questions opened the way for
the British to offer Adams an exit from armed struggle by redefining what was
meant by concepts such as 'self-determination' and 'withdrawal'."
--Ed Moloney (A Secret History of the IRA, p. 250)

Here's most of the (unsigned) secret British reply to Gerry Adams:

"The Provisional IRA say they are fighting a war of independence to win freedom
and self-determination for the people of Ireland. They maintain that force must
be used to persuade the British government to acknowledge such a freedom
because it has a colonial self-interest in remaining in Northern Ireland and in
exercising authority there. This interpretation of the political situation in
Northern Ireland is based upon the false assumption that Britain has some
interest of her own in remaining there and is therefore engaged in some way
in defending those interests by force of military strength.

Britain of course has an interest in Northern Ireland which is to respond with
a warm goodwill and friendship to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland
as a whole....But let me be very clear! In the second half of the 20th century
no matter what has been the position in the past the British government has no
political, military, strategic, or economic interest in staying in Ireland or
in the exercise of authority there that could transcend respect for the wishes
of the majority in Northern Ireland.

The political and security situation as it has now developed in Northern
Ireland is due to the historical, political, religious and cultural divisions
which separate the people of the nationalist tradition from the people of the
unionist tradition in Ireland. These divisions are at the root of the conflict
there and not any self-interested dominion policies of the British government.

The central issue in the conflict therefore is not to persuade the British
government to decide on the question of self-determination in Ireland but to
bridge the divisions between the people of both traditions there in a way that
will enable them to decide it freely and democratically for themselves.
The politial consensus and agreement which would bridge these traditional
divisions and so open the way to a peaceful resolution of the questions of
Irish self-determination can only be achieved through the processes of
political debate and dialogue between the peoples of both traditions.

Should they through their political representatives agree to engage in such
dialogue the British government would do everything possible to accomodate
and facilitate it. It would, for example, provide the necessary framework
and forum which could take the form of an ongoing conference or convention
composed of the official representatives of the people of both traditions.
It would confine its own role in such a dialogue to that of facilitator and
so would not officially take part in it or, much less, seek in any way to
dictate to it.

This means the British government is prepared to withdraw from the central
area of historical, political, religious and cultural conflict and from the
central forum of political debate that would seek to resolve it so that the
parties to the conflict, namely the people of the nationalist tradition and
the people of the unionist tradition can engage freely, independently and
democratically in the political dialogue and in agreement-making which would
bridge their divisions.

Should this dialogue result in agreements based onthe consent of the people
of the two traditions which would bridge the political divisions between them
and to define the forms of new political structures which would embody,
institute and organise such agreements the British government would respond
with the necessary legislation.

We hope that this statement will clarify our present policies in Northern
Ireland. We also hope that it will prompt the Provisional IRA to review
their present policies and to see that the use of violent tactics against
'colonial interests' which in fact do not exist is a mistake and a tragedy
beyond words not only for the people of Ireland generally but also for
themselves.

Questions about Irish political self-determination can only be answered by
the people of the nationalist and unionist traditions in democratic conference
among themselves. Britain can assist them but she cannot answer for them
because the problem is not that the British government will not agree to
Irish self-determination but that the people of the two divided traditions
do not at present agree amongst themselves on how to exercise it.

It is our fervent hope that what we have said in our statement will convince
the Provisional IRA and the Sinn Fein party that the political divisions
between the people of the two traditions in Ireland which are at the heart
of the conflict cannot be bridged much less healed by force. Their use of
force is, in fact, holding back the day of justice and peace for the people
of both traditions because the political debate which would bring that day
forward cannot take place freely and democratically while they or indeed any
significant sector of either tradition are using the argument of the gun. ..."

--quoted by Ed Moloney in 'A Secret History of the IRA', pp. 251-3

To DoctorSBD (who has described himself as 'a sufferer of the Irish diaspora')
and many others like him, perhaps the first question that could come to mind
would be: 'Is the British document credible?'

My Irish friend and I have agreed that it seems credible enough on its
main points, as far as it goes.

I definitely would not believe every statement that has ever been made by
the British government. I tend to write as a critic of British imperialism
in history, and indeed my family has reasons to have some sense of grievance
against the British government. But I also would not necessarily dismiss
every position expressd by the British government today simply because there
has been a historical record of broken promises by other British governments.

My Irish friend and I agree, most importantly, that the common Irish
nationalist perception (evidently particularly common among the romantic
nationalists in the Irish diaspora) that the conflict is rooted mainly in
the British military presence in Northern Ireland is based on a serious
misunderstanding of Irish realities and not helpful to resolving it.

I hope that what I have written here may offer DoctorSBD and other readers a
perspective that may not have been previously considered about the conflicts
in Ireland.

--Nick

some snippage

If Rupert Brooke had substituted 'Britain' for 'England' and 'British' for
'English', then his poem would have had different cultural connotations.

I have been enjoying this exchange, but would like to say that the
difference would be a political emphasis. For example, I am in all political
and legal definition English, yet culturally a Celt.

Incidentally, the American author of Red Badge of Courage, is also an
interesting analyst of these [war-time]subjects, though 'culture' is
implicit rather than expicit, and the title is still a set book in American
High Schools.

"There is clear evidence that the concept of Englishness--the
'Englishness'
of the Anglo-Saxons, as opposed to the 'Britishness' of the
Celts--circulated
widely in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Yes. I think this is correct, however the emphasis is not of a political
'Britain or England', but a cultural one.

Bede composed 'Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis
Anglorum' (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People), where the
'Gens
Anglorum' were deemed to be a specific and identifiable race sprung out of
Saxon and Old English roots. In Bede's history, 'the English were God's
new
'chosen' nation elected to replace the sin-stained Briton in the promised
land
of Britain.' (This belief in God's providential choice, most ably
expounded
by Milton in the seventeenth century, survived until the later part of the
nineteenth century.)

Yes again. A further definition of these two things can be found in the
Church, and the schism at Farne between what might be called British
Johanine early Christianity, and the later Pauline English variant, which
became dominant thereafter.

Thereafter much "British" language and culture took a hike, pursued by
Normanidisation, to Wales, Ireland and Breton France, to return a bit
transmogrified 200 years later as Romance material, until that interesting
woman translated Mabinogion.

The notion of Englishness itself was a religious one
from the moment Pope Gregory sent Augustine to England with the mission of
establishing a Church of the English, in the light of his celebrated if
apocryphal remark 'non Angli sed angeli' ('Not Angles but angels'). A
late
seventh-century biography then declared that Gregory would lead 'gentum
Anglorum' into the sight of God at the time of the Last Judgement. One of
the reasons for the success of the Reformation, and the formation of the
Church of England, lies in this national zeal."
--Peter Ackroyd (Albion: The Origins of the English Imagination, p.
xxviii)

O. I anticipated your point too quickly! And someone else has read Ackroyd!
I should that Ackroyd's literary record may be a deeper well than his
historical one. Did you read "English Music" as a comparison?

'I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.'
--William Blake

Amen.

Relectantly returning to chess, Adams might feel as I do above, that he is
not culturally English as a dominant, and he may elect to be more Celt or
'British" in the older sense you mention. [I don't know, and speculate].
This is not to say that this rejects what is currently 'English" and such
persons as Wm. Blake, as example, have been better English extrapolators of
what is British than any nominal other persons, perhaps since the Bard.

It is an interesting layering of one thing on another, and both cultures
seem to inform and intertwine with each other more as variants on a theme,
rather than anything antithetical .

Phil Innes

--Nick

"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...(t o Eamon Warnock):
"Eamon Warnock" wrote in message
news:f13d778b766321f48c7de3d29b159d4e.61944@mygate .mailgate.org...(to Ivan):
(snipped)
Are you from USA and do you know the
difference between England and Britain?
(That's called a yes-and-no question.) :-D

I don't think we should make fun of Americans for not knowing
the flags of the different parts of the UK.

It seems to me that Eamon Warnock was at most 'making fun', mildly, not so
much of Americans in general but of one American troll, 'Ivan', in particular.

"That country (Canada) has no culture and they want to be just like the USA
anyway."
--Ivan (19 September 2003, "Bobby Fischer and taxes")

After all, how many of us Brits would recognise the flag of California?

The flag of California has the words 'CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC' on it.
Anyone who can read English should be able to identify it correctly.

--Nick

From the chess memoirs of Richard Furness in the latest British Chess
Magazine:


I used to like to have little flags besides the players at chess
tournaments I ran. I felt that they emphasized the international nature
of the event and would impress the sponsors and encourage them to
continue their support. They also added colour for photographic
interest. Usually the Lord Mayor of Manchester would open the
proceedings and on one occasion, he was accompanied by his wife. As we
surveyed the scene soon after the start, the Lord Mayor's wife said to
me, "You have a lot of Swiss players". I was puzzled since we had none.
She pointed to a flag with a cross on it. I responded by telling her
that was the flag of England..Now she was puzzled. "But it isn't the
Union Jack" she replied. I explained to her that the Cross of St.
George was the flag of England. She remained bewildered.

Chiffres