Whatever happenned to British patriotism?

[K. A. Pital]

I think you might be on to something there. My history education, where it featured Britain at all, seemed to be almost embarassed about our history, especially the Imperial days.

Britain's imperial history is embarrassing from a human rights perspective, at least. What's there to be proud of? You yourself didn't achieve even the good stuff, whatever that was.

Indeed. I believe Britain is taking some correct steps in separating itself (even though it's a continous government) from the British Empire - e.g. Churchill is being criticized and some of the more obscure stuff about him being an asshole is becoming more well-known in schools, and so are many more figure of Britain's past and its actions as an Empire put under intense scrutiny.

[Phantasee]

I will wear the flag when I travel internationally but that's partly because I want to be an ambassador for Canada and Alberta. I want people to know where I am from, and as long as you're on your best behaviour you make a positive contribution with your patriotic display. It also helps that Canada has a generally positive reputation overseas so I get some benefit from that.

In country? On Canada Day, and Remembrance Day, though the poppy is a much stronger symbol on the latter day. But otherwise, no, not unless we've got some important competition where the athletes represent Canada (like in professional hockey).

Like I said, it's what you do, not the symbols. Wear a Union flag patch while traveling and being a good guest to improve your country's status, but don't wrap yourself in it while sitting on the couch. That's meaningless and makes no difference to the country.

[Thanas]

British patriotism seems to have become the domain of anti-EUers, the BNP and football fans. It shouldn't be.

It also should not involve rewriting history lessons to talk more positively about the country, which after all has directly or indirectly caused tens of millions of deaths.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

British patriotism seems to have become the domain of anti-EUers, the BNP and football fans. It shouldn't be.

Maybe not, but they taint it by association.

It also should not involve rewriting history lessons to talk more positively about the country, which after all has directly or indirectly caused tens of millions of deaths.

And that, for a lot of people, is the big one. It's hard to feel proud of a history like that, especially when just about every achievement we've ever made is tainted by it. What's more, it's even harder to feel proud of your country when the rest of the world keeps telling you that it's s**t, and that you're to blame for all their problems. There's a nastly little voice inside your head telling you that they might have a point.

[Zaune]

It takes a fair bit of cognitive dissonance to feel patriotic in this country anyway. What exactly have we done since 1945?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ummmm, not a lot. No major scientific things spring to mind, nor any major global politcal things. I think the only significant thing we did on our own was the Falklands war, and that was done on a wing and a prayer it seems

[Bedlam]

No major scientific things spring to mind

The Watson Crick double helix springs to mind

[OmegaChief]

No major scientific things spring to mind

The Watson Crick double helix springs to mind

That can't exactly be described as somthing fresh in the minds of the most recent generation (or two).

A shame he forgot about Prof. Hawkings too.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I meant huge things that enter the public mind, like Relativity, Quark theories, particle accelerators like Stanford or the LHC, big space projects and so forth. Yes, I did forget about Professor Hawking, to my chagrin

[Thanas]

No major scientific things spring to mind

The Watson Crick double helix springs to mind

That can't exactly be described as somthing fresh in the minds of the most recent generation (or two).

Nevertheless, it was an outstanding discovery, even though they ripped off a female colleague.

As for reasons Brits can be proud of their country?
- Universities like Oxford and cambridge are still very much respected (the rest less so, but still)
- the NHS seems to be working fine
- London alone is a marvel of engineering
- The defence of British independence against empires far larger (though of course not in the last few decades)
- The integration of tens of thousands of former colonial subjects without resorting to an apartheid state
- parts of British history (abolition of slavery, Magna Charta, exploring to a degree etc)
- scientific discoveries (Newton anybody?)

Those are just the few at the top of my head. Really, it is not hard to be proud of one's country, one just also has to keep an open mind with regards to the rest and the negative effects.

[Prannon]

Personally, I think the British can take some pride in their imperial history. Unlike other empires, the British has a lasting legacy in creating new and successful states as a solution to the problem posed by the American War for Independence. Namely, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand come to mind. This sort of open minded solution to governing such a vast empire strikes me as particularly enlightened in the history of the human race.

[Thanas]

Personally, I think the British can take some pride in their imperial history. Unlike other empires, the British has a lasting legacy in creating new and successful states as a solution to the problem posed by the American War for Independence. Namely, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand come to mind. This sort of open minded solution to governing such a vast empire strikes me as particularly enlightened in the history of the human race.

Not really, seeing as these were pure products of necessity. Meanwhile, their history in asia and africa is pretty much horrible.

[Prannon]

Not really, seeing as these were pure products of necessity. Meanwhile, their history in asia and africa is pretty much horrible.

True enough. Could a point be made that many other empires did not see the same necessity and didn't leave that sort of legacy behind? Or am I just being naive?

[Thanas]

Not really, seeing as these were pure products of necessity. Meanwhile, their history in asia and africa is pretty much horrible.

True enough. Could a point be made that many other empires did not see the same necessity and didn't leave that sort of legacy behind? Or am I just being naive?

The only other nation we can compare it to in terms of scale is the Spanish Empire, which colonial legacy is a lott better simply due to the fact that their colonies were better developed and gained independence much earlier, thus giving them more time to not turn into Africa. France also did a bit better but not by much and still keeps many of the colonies closely linked to the motherland, even with unsavory means. Rome would also be a contender but does not rate for obvious reasons.

So, Spain and France (the letter by much, though) did better in that regard than Britain.

[UnderAGreySky]

As a non-British citizen in the UK, maybe I can provide a different perspective to this.

Most of the English (haven't met many other Britons) I've met *are* apologetic about what they've done in the former colleagues. And the opinion I've been getting from them is that open patriotism (flag waving and USA! USA! USA! type chants) are now the domain of chavs/yobs/oiks/hooligans. I did see a lot of those mini flags on top of cars during the footy world cup, though.

That said, I'd disagree that they are less patriotic in total. I sort of get the feeling that they are, for the most part, proud of their country, and if a crisis comes about they'll bond together in a jiffy.

The only negative experience I've had (and I'm not the only one) is with second generation immigrants. Especially some Indian and Pakistani (disclaimer: I'm Indian, but I arrived here two years back and don't plan to stay) 20-somethings have a rather despicable attitude towards the country of their citizenship. Their attitude leaves a lot to be desired, and they end up behaving like arses towards both the white and black folk in this country and the people back home. Hint, if you're white and your ears catch the word 'goraa' from their lips, there's a chance they're talking about you and they don't want you to know. Goraa = white, kaalaa = black.

This sounds like a sweeping generalisation on my part, but so far the nice guys have been outnumbered by the annoying gits, and I'm not saying all of them are part of the same circle.

[Simon_Jester]

On the subject of comparing the Spanish and British empires, though, how much is due to Spanish colonial policy and how much is due to circumstances such as timing and the fact that the two empires occupied different areas?

In Latin America, the Spanish more or less overwrote the existing native cultures with a characteristically 'Spanish' one: not identical to that found in Spain, but clearly recognizable as a Spanish offshoot. Most of the native population died, and ethnic divisions among the natives were rendered irrelevant by centuries of colonization from Spain.

If we compare that to the British colonies in what are now the US and the former Dominions (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) we see a similar pattern: the native population suffered massive die-offs and was marginalized, and their culture was overwritten by that of the European colonists.

In both cases, the former colonies did relatively well. Latin America is much better off than Africa.

Now compare any of those nations to countries where the former colonial power didn't destroy and overwrite the local culture so thoroughly. For the Spanish, the only example that comes to mind readily is the Philippines; for the British, we have the great majority of their empire in Africa and India to look at.

All those nations are relatively poor countries, and with a few exceptions all suffer from serious problems with ethnic strife, foreign economic exploitation, political corruption, and so on. Especially in Africa, their problems tend to be much worse than former colonies elsewhere.

So I have to ask:

Is the difference between the Spanish and British empires due to the British being more exploitative, more ineffective, or otherwise 'worse' colonial masters? Is it due to the vast majority of the Spanish empire being European transplant-cultures, which had considerable advantages* in their post-colonial periods, while only a fraction of the British empire was made up of transplant-cultures?

Is it both? Something else entirely? What other factors am I missing here?

---

*Examples of advantages:

-European transplant societies like Mexico and the US may be able to deal on more even terms with European powers, because of similarities of language, religion, and cultural background.

-European transplant societies generally had internal self-government separate from the colonial administration. When the colonial power was driven out, that left a government in place to run things, maintain local order, negotiate with foreign powers, and generally prevent a collapse of society into Balkanized ethnic factions or warlordism. That was lacking in other decolonized areas, particularly Africa (where kicking out the colonists left no local government, creating a power vacuum for strongmen).

-In European transplant societies, the native population was marginalized, either assimilated into the transplant society or effectively destroyed. That left... I hesitate to call it this but can't think of another way to describe it... a "clean slate" as far as ethnic rivalries were concerned. The transplant society was culturally more uniform than what it replaced, which reduced internal ethnic tensions, though it didn't erase them. In other decolonized areas that isn't true, and the decolonized society winds up suffering round after round of warfare over old ethnic disputes that were left to smolder during the colonial era.

These factors strike me as important enough that they may explain different outcomes between European-transplant colonies and cases where colonial masters moved in and started exploiting the local population without destroying or assimilating their culture.

The fact that the Spanish empire contained few colonies of the second type, while the British empire contained many, might have a lot to do with why the former Spanish colonies are doing better on average than many of the former British ones.

[Thanas]

Is the difference between the Spanish and British empires due to the British being more exploitative, more ineffective, or otherwise 'worse' colonial masters? Is it due to the vast majority of the Spanish empire being European transplant-cultures, which had considerable advantages* in their post-colonial periods, while only a fraction of the British empire was made up of transplant-cultures?

Is it both? Something else entirely? What other factors am I missing here?

I do not know (more precisely I do not want to sift through my books), but one factor that always struck me as being part of the solution is that the Spanish were far less racist than the British were and had much more of a cooperation policy than white settlers. This may surprise some people, but just look at how the Creoles fared under Spanish rule. The Spanish were also not that interested in widespread settlement like the English were. And of course, the Spanish formed local elites which were able to stabilize the countries, though of course this worked to the Spanish detriment when said elites wanted to be independent.

[UnderAGreySky]

I'd not thought of it that way, Simon, but you bring up a good point.

Is the difference between the Spanish and British empires due to the British being more exploitative, more ineffective, or otherwise 'worse' colonial masters? Is it due to the vast majority of the Spanish empire being European transplant-cultures, which had considerable advantages* in their post-colonial periods, while only a fraction of the British empire was made up of transplant-cultures?

A question of scale, I guess. From North America to Oceania, the British Empire was humongous. And you answered your own question in a way: wherever the British transplanted themselves - Australia, North America - they could deal with their 'own' people. Just like us, but slightly different. Same language, similar food, similar customs. And where they went as traders - Asia and Africa - they had to rule and not replace. And so there was a larger cultural gap. American and Australian ancestry goes back a couple of hundred years (unless you're Aborginal or Native American which are a tiny fraction), and that is traced back to the British. "My great great :: great uncle was on the Mayflower/the first convict" is not uncommon, I guess.

[Thanas]

Actually, up until the 19th century, the British Empire was smaller than the Spanish empire, so scale is not an issue here.

[Thanas]

BO's ignorance has been split to a more deserving forum.

[mr friendly guy]

It takes a fair bit of cognitive dissonance to feel patriotic in this country anyway. What exactly have we done since 1945?

You have produce good science fiction shows. Also you make good Dalek merchandise, oh wait, they are made in China.

You also produced a certain 12 Michelin star chef.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, up until the 19th century, the British Empire was smaller than the Spanish empire, so scale is not an issue here.

Perhaps scale suddenly became an issue in the 19th century? After all, the North American British colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries fared rather well, while the 19th and 20th century colonies (excepting Australia and New Zealand) fared quite poorly.

[Metahive]

Please don't forget the rich "Crown Jewel" of the british colonies, India, which the UK only took supreme control of during the 19th century. Wouldn't say that that colony fared in any way poorly.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ummmm, not a lot. No major scientific things spring to mind, nor any major global politcal things. I think the only significant thing we did on our own was the Falklands war, and that was done on a wing and a prayer it seems

You mean none of you have heard of Maxwell's equations for electromagneticism? That is like... one of the major revolutions in Scientific history! How about Issac Newton for heaven's sake.

[Bernkastel]

Fingolfin, the last time I checked, Isaac Newton was not alive in the later half of the 20th century, which is the period Eternal Freedom was looking at. Unless I happened to miss some instance of Newton rising from the grave, he is still quite dead.

I personally am happy that a lot of British patriotism is not in the form of flags at schools or singing patriotic songs. To be honest though, I'm not that fond of nationalism in general due to the forms it tends to take. As for feelings that patriotism is dying, I would disagree. I do see it in others, though the way it is expressed seems to be more adapted to the realities of what modern Britain actually is, though there is a tendency to draw from the past for comparisons. Given what Britain used to be, it is understandable that some would look at modern Britain and be disappointed at what they see.

Also, I would like to add the point that many of the points made on why British people can be proud of their nation are based on scientific achievements. Military success and and our status amongst the great powers seem to be the prime fields for many when it comes to looking for reasons for pride in the nation. I don't know about the rest of you, but it tends to the military and it's accomplishments that rabid nationalists roll out often. e.g. "We won WWII".