So you think you are English

[British Red]

Fascinating - I inferred that Waylands post related to my post about pride in my country. Your view though seems to be that "tribe" is more akin to "family or extended family". I'm off for an etymological hunt

Wikipedia opens with

A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states

Many anthropologists use the term to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship, especially corporate descent groups (see clan and kinship).

Some theorists hold that tribes represent a stage in social evolution intermediate between bands and states. Other theorists argue that tribes developed after, and must be understood in terms of their relationship to, states. Some criticize its connotations as a way of attaching "backwardness" and the racist notion of primitive since the term "tribe" is largely used to describe non-White peoples

The online etymological dictionary offers:

mid-13c., "one of the twelve divisions of the ancient Hebrews," from O.Fr. tribu, from L. tribus "one of the three political/ethnic divisions of the original Roman state" (Tites, Ramnes, and Luceres, corresponding, perhaps, to the Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans), later, one of the 30 political divisions instituted by Servius Tullius (increased to 35 in 241 B.C.E.), perhaps from tri- "three" + *bhu-, root of the verb be. Others connect the word with the root of Welsh tref "town, inhabited place."

So we have choices of race, family / descent, town or political division. I suspect your notion of "Clan" may be pretty close to the original meaning from the Latin although "race" seems closer.

Strange though - I don't associate tribe with a racial connotation... it feels "smaller" somehow than encompassing an entire race.

I hope Wayland will pop back and let us know what he meant by the phrase as it probably fruitless to speculate

Red

 

[Bushwhacker]

Also not actually a group of people with common ancestry, I'm afraid.

I'd better have a word with myself then.

 

[apj1974]

No, I meant England - a country in which I have as much pride as, say, the Scots do in Scotland.

I applaud your pride in being English and think it is indeed a good thing. It is just that most of the achievements you listed in your earlier post were arguably British achievements not English ones (specifically that most of them occurred after 1707).

 

[British Red]

Really?

Now that genuinely intrigues me in that I don't understand what part of what I listed predates 1707? The establishment of the house of commons? 14th century surely?

The legal rights enshrined in Magna Carta? Earlier still.

Genuinely confused here.....

 

[apj1974]

Really?

Now that genuinely intrigues me in that I don't understand what part of what I listed predates 1707? The establishment of the house of commons? 14th century surely?

The legal rights enshrined in Magna Carta? Earlier still.

Genuinely confused here.....

The British Parliament in its modern form did not really exist (as the Parliament for England & Wales) until the Bill of Rights in 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 and certainly not before the restoration of 1660, granted all before the Act of Union, but not significantly so in a way that could be said that there was a long established parliament which would form the model for all parliaments; in reality parliament was still defining itself in 1707.

Again the Legal rites enshrined in Magna Carter were not widely respected until after the Restoration, Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and the Act of Settlement and many of such rites and the principals of the Judiciary could be argued to be ancient Greek and Roman anyway.

England has arguably not existed as a state since 1542 (when it took in Wales) and certainly not since 1707. England still exists as a country and arguably as a nation, but not as a state.

The majority of other things like technology, industry and agricultural improvements are products of the industrial revolution (late 18th century) and James Watt was Scottish as was Andrew Meikle (who invented the threshing machine).

I don't know much about art and music, but I would guess that these are fairly international affairs, I cant think of many famous composers from before 1707 anyway.

The exporting of much of British culture, sport and legal systems owes most to the British Empire, which by definition is British!

My argument is not that England is not a great country, with a great history and culture and with much to be proud of. It is all these things, I am heartened to see England football fans proudly flying the cross of St George. But that England does not exist independent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the legal state in which it exists) and that many of the achievements which you highlighted are really products of the past 300 years or so and therefore primarily British.

Actually you would have been better citing sports like Football or Cricket (but not Golf!) or even the English Language itself.

 

[Wayland]

Some of the many problems that have arisen in Africa and the Middle East were caused because maps were drawn up that divided nations, but took no account of the existing tribal divisions.

Some tribes are bigger than the nations they now inhabit, others are smaller but much of the trouble that comes out of those areas stems back to tribal rivalries going back for millennia.

In our own society tribalism manifests itself in many ways. Nationalism for one example, football hooliganism for another and perhaps even "our forum is better than theirs."

In my opinion until the human race realises that it is just a thin film living on the surface of a tiny planet with a delicate ecosystem, and that ultimately "we are all in this together" then there really is no hope.

 

[Tadpole]

The majority of other things like technology, industry and agricultural improvements are products of the industrial revolution (late 18th century) and James Watt was Scottish as was Andrew Meikle (who invented the threshing machine).

I find it very amusing, and kind of sad, that people name famous inventions coming from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and they are classed as Scottish invention or Welsh or Irish but when something is invented by an English inventor, we “English” are expected to accept it as a British invention.

 

[apj1974]

I find it very amusing, and kind of sad, that people name famous inventions coming from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and they are classed as Scottish invention or Welsh or Irish but when something is invented by an English inventor, we “English” are expected to accept it as a British invention.

Thomas Newcomen invented the Steam Engine, James Watt fundamentally improved it, therefore it is a British Invention and the Industrial revolution was primarily a British movement. Edwin Budding invented the Lawn Mower, it is therefore an "English invention". Ernest Willows is known as the father of British Airships, he is Welsh but collaborated in the work with the admiralty. I really don't see what the problem is.

If you read carefully though all I said was Andrew Meikle was Scottish, I did not say anything about the nationality of his invention (can one?). All English, Welsh, Scottish inventions since 1707 are to some extent British inventions also because we have all been both British and whatever since that date.

 

[British Red]

Precisely so Tadpole

How can we claim Watt as "Scottish" but eschew claiming English inventors as "English"?? Either both are British or neither

Oh, purely for information, Thomas Savery (English) invented steam pumping gear before 1700

Red

 

[Tadpole]

Hero of Alexandria invented the Steam engine, Newcomen invented the "atmospheric engine"

 

[apj1974]

How can we claim Watt as "Scottish" but eschew claiming English inventors as "English"?? Either both are British or neither

Oh, purely for information, Thomas Savery (English) invented steam pumping gear before 1700

Both are British which is my point!! Nobody's eschewing anything.
Tadpole - you are correct re atmospheric engine - I think the steam engine was a bad example (What have the Romans ever done for us?)
Red - Thomas Savery was indeed English, the company which inherited his patent was British.

this is fun!! We are doing quite well really, we have moved this thread from Saxon times to the 16th C, what's next devolution?

 

[British Red]

Some of the many problems that have arisen in Africa and the Middle East were caused because maps were drawn up that divided nations, but took no account of the existing tribal divisions.

Some tribes are bigger than the nations they now inhabit, others are smaller but much of the trouble that comes out of those areas stems back to tribal rivalries going back for millennia.

In our own society tribalism manifests itself in many ways. Nationalism for one example, football hooliganism for another and perhaps even "our forum is better than theirs."

In my opinion until the human race realises that it is just a thin film living on the surface of a tiny planet with a delicate ecosystem, and that ultimately "we are all in this together" then there really is no hope.

An admirable sentiment Wayland, absolutely to be commended.

I'm intrigued though (and a little worried) as to how one should enact this "we are all in this together" ethos. Given we live in arguably the most priveleged element of the most priveleged society that has ever existed, to be truly "fair" I guess we should give somehwere between 90 and 95% of our take home pay to the less privileged. I wish I could say I am prepared to do it, but, since I don't already give 9 or every 10 pounds I earn to charity, that would make me a hypocrite

But if we accept privilege and poverty as a birthright, then we embrace and accept tribalism.

Whilst I'm happy to donate monthly to a number of charities, it doesn't begin to approach 90+% of my income. I am embarassed to admit I would resist giving up my home, my daughters education, and eating well. However I acknowledge that, whilst I accept and allow inequality, I must accept "tribalism" as a fact.

How do you square that circle?

Red

 

[apj1974]

... to be truly "fair" I guess we should give somehwere between 90 and 95% of our take home pay to the less privileged. I wish I could say I am prepared to do it, but, since I don't already give 9 or every 10 pounds I earn to charity, that would make me a hypocrite

How do you square that circle?

I guess that's one of those things that we would all have to do to make it possible as our economy would have to adjust to accommodate it. it would be impossible for an individual.

 

[Wilderbeast]

Whilst I understand the yearning for a "we're all in this together attitude" I just feel that its never going to happen, it's be like telling all the wolf packs to work together, all the elephant herds to work together or all the lion prides to work together. Whilst I believe world peace is achievable, I believe the only time we would see all humans as "one" would be in the introduction of an external life forms i.e aliens! However I don't see that happening anytime soon!

 

[beamdune]

Um, Red, is that 90-95% figure real and not a typo? I'm sure plenty of folks on here would find they need more than 5-10% of their take home pay to survive on (pay rent/mortgage, petrol/buse fares, eat)

An admirable sentiment Wayland, absolutely to be commended.

I'm intrigued though (and a little worried) as to how one should enact this "we are all in this together" ethos. Given we live in arguably the most priveleged element of the most priveleged society that has ever existed, to be truly "fair" I guess we should give somehwere between 90 and 95% of our take home pay to the less privileged. I wish I could say I am prepared to do it, but, since I don't already give 9 or every 10 pounds I earn to charity, that would make me a hypocrite

But if we accept privilege and poverty as a birthright, then we embrace and accept tribalism.

Whilst I'm happy to donate monthly to a number of charities, it doesn't begin to approach 90+% of my income. I am embarassed to admit I would resist giving up my home, my daughters education, and eating well. However I acknowledge that, whilst I accept and allow inequality, I must accept "tribalism" as a fact.

How do you square that circle?

Red

 

[Wayland]

Snip> How do you square that circle?

Red

I live on less than I could sponge off the state if I wanted. I have an incredibly small financial footprint for someone born in the West.

I earn my living by providing a unique service that my customers are very satisfied with, but that makes my lifestyle effectively carbon positive.

I'm quite happy with my contribution to solving the problem.

I just don't ask most people to understand it.

 

[apj1974]

It would be impossible for an individual.

I live on less than I could sponge off the state if I wanted. I have an incredibly small financial footprint for someone born in the West.
I just don't ask most people to understand it.

Ok I take that back.

It would be very difficult for most individuals!

respect!

 

[British Red]

Um, Red, is that 90-95% figure real and not a typo? I'm sure plenty of folks on here would find they need more than 5-10% of their take home pay to survive on (pay rent/mortgage, petrol/buse fares, eat)

Oh yes, thats absolutely real. If you survive on more than £5 a day, you are uniquely privileged.

 

[British Red]

I live on less than I could sponge off the state if I wanted. I have an incredibly small financial footprint for someone born in the West.

I earn my living by providing a unique service that my customers are very satisfied with, but that makes my lifestyle effectively carbon positive.

I'm quite happy with my contribution to solving the problem.

I just don't ask most people to understand it.

And I grant you that that is both laudable and enviable. However, the question still remains, whether you would give up all the things you would need to give up, to remove the barriers between you and, for example, a citizen of Sierra Leone? Where the average gross income is less than £10 per week.

Suely that is the nexus of tribalism.

I absolutely accept Wayland, that you are willing and able to liove a more environmentally acceptable and frugal life than the vast majority of the western world. And I salute you for it.

But you are still hugely privileged compared to a slum dweller in any number of states.

If we wish to change that paradigm, we should give all that we earn (or most of it) to those who live on less than a dollar a day.

I am ashamed that I am too selfish to give up everything I have that amounts to more than a dollar a day. And by not doing so, I accept my priveleged position and perpetuate tribalism.

And, respectfully, so do all those who enjoy a health service, and an annual income measured in thousands, let alone tens of thousands.

Red

 

[Wilderbeast]

I remember reading somewhere that if you're just on minimum wage in this country you're in the top ten percent richest people in the world....puts it in perspective does it not!!