| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Mar 2006 : 20:00:02
|
|
I have heard many definitions of who is a British and which was a suprise. If you speak to a Scot or Irish or Welsh or an English there seems to be no agreed definition. Can some one help me out why and what does being British mean in today's United Kingdom.
|
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” |
|
|
Formby
United Kingdom
246 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:24:55
|
Constitutionally, a 'subject' resident in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The 4 'territories' comprise the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as 'Britain'. (Politically, Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland). As we live under a Monarch, we are not citizens but subjects. Apparently.
What it means emotively differs depending whom you speak to and is a bit contraversial. If you raise the issue as an 'outsider', expect much heated disagreement! |
 |
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 21:48:46
|
| Thanks Formby for the clarification. Why do you think there is disgareement as to who is british. Is it an indication of disunity in British society and more so the role of the Monarchy? |
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” |
|
|
|
OB1
84 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2006 : 15:53:23
|
| Who is a British? The question has to have two answers. The geographical and legal composition of what makes one a British is one. The other, however, I think is the Gordon Brown definition of ‘what a British person ‘should’ be’, which hinges on an identity. At present, by asking this question means that there is an unnecessary identity crisis in Britain. The immigrants have come in, and are involved in many aspects of British life (economic mostly, and recently politics). The fact sadly remains thus: the id crises will have to be addressed, not by government but by communities as to what are the commonalties that all can identify with that makes them ‘one and the same’. In the US for example all-and sundry (Blacks, Irish, Jews, and Anglo Saxons) arrived on a continent that was never theirs, liberated it from the British and some parts, the French. They made it an ideal melting pot held together by intangible and fleeting belief systems (wealth, influence, liberty, and opportunity, baseball, American Football, stars and stripes flag), and that makes them “American”—regardless of creed, colour, or ethic background, ethnicity in US comes last. In the UK ethnicity, comes first. Even the Scots, Welsh, Irish and English, have and continue to cling onto their tribal linage. They have different flags, anthems, and colours and even sports teams! Not to talk about the Africans, Indians, Eastern Europeans….there are more friendly differences in Britain than another ‘continent’. But this is not a bad thing. What is bad, is the issue of coercing people to accept an ideal that is not suited for a culture that was based on a united diversity—as in UK. The time to be British has not arrived, and may never will. Being a European perhaps has a better chance of sustainability in UK. |
BN |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
