A Spectre Of Populism Is Stalking The Lowlands

Because 19th century europe wasn't a multiracial society.

But large parts of it was multi-ethnic (i.e., Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires).

It's hard enough trying to reconcile the fact that you find "people" to be generally thoughtful and caring, while "The People" can always be depended upon to make you lose your faith in humanity altogether. I'll never understand polarized voting, for instance; election results swinging wildly from left to right at every term, hordes of "voters" just blindly reacting to conditions, with no sense of political identity. It's as though not just their opinions, but their entire value system is subject to change every four years. Who < i>are these people?

Well, I can guess this much: they're reading the Daily Mail. The thing to remember is that as frightening as those numbers may seem at first glance, most of those readers wouldn't identify as "right of centre" at all. These are "The People". They read the papers which make it their business to be the easiest to read. Chances are they voted Labour but they think it's "a real mess". If you asked, they'd tell you that terrorism was "bloody awful" and all the rest of it, then they'd go back to their crossword. If you asked them to "characterize their Utopia", they'd probably implode.

If "The People" have a default state at all, it's dissatisfaction. That in itself is probably healthy, provided a debate is always running to keep "extreme" agendas well-scrutinized. Populism=Fascism is ridiculous obviously, and "whipping up atavistic fears in insecure people"= oldest trick in the book, no?

The elite "conservatism" of the 19th century was academic and thus seemed nannying -- i.e. "We the educated elite have special understanding of this new machine of business and capital that is the path to a better world. If you the unwashed masses were able to understand these things, you would understand why your living and working conditions are not unjust and you would stop complaining and trust us." The populist response: "Screw the fancy theoretical system: we're the people and we want better living standards."

The "elite" "liberalism" of the latter 20th century is also academic and thus seems nannying: "We the educated elite have special understanding of the ways in which social culture and material culture interact with free rational choice and the ways in which value systems are in certain senses relative and cannot be imposed upon others and the ways in which governmental efforts can correct problems by addressing these complex sociological realities, and if you the unwashed masses were able to understand these things you would see how you should use sociological tools to improve the lives and decisions of those around you, rather than complaining about them or subjecting them to your moral opprobrium." The populist response: "Screw the fancy theoretical system: we're the people and we'll shun or refuse to help anyone we want to."

The constant is an elite that applies a system of thought to the world, as opposed to a populous who look at "facts on the ground" and demand whatever it is that they want at the moment.

Oh dear. My HTML is showing. Mortifying.

They don't have as much influence over direct voting (ie, the correlation between the Sun saying 'Vote Tory' and people voting Tory will always be problematic). Their influence is at the micro-level - the setting of an agenda that forms the glue of sociality at workplaces - a agenda that veers between the trivial and the vicious.

a) A specific relationship between monarchy and Englishness.

b) A specific relationship between Christianity and Englishness.

This would certainly imply that there are some implicit criteria by which true Englishness is to be measured by anyone who chooses to adopt the 'state of mind' you describe. Given the decline in constitutional and legislative significance of the monarchy since Richard II's time (or since Shakespeare's) isn't the necessary implication that England is less English than it once was? Given too the fragmentation of Christian sects and the presence of other religions, then England must be even *more* less English than it once was. As in John of Gaunt's own speech, the idea of England as a 'state of mind' is elegiac. It is a mourning speech for something that has passed. And by invoking that 'past' in such a rhetorical and theatrical manner, it reminds us that the 'past' can live on for *us* only as an idea, not a fact. (Leaving aside the question of its factual accuracy or otherwise).

It is this 'idea' to which I object. By drawing on an ideal of Englishness (Christian, homogeneous, hierarchical, monarchical, certainly anti-democratic) which has no bearing on British society today, it provides a) criteria by which to establish supposed 'difference' from an equally mythic 'norm' and b) rhetorical fuel for those who not only imagine those differences, but seek to enforce sameness violently.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Use a history book published before 1960 for a better chance of reading the actual facts.

These two views are not consistent.

This is absolute nonsense. Even coastlines recede or advance. Even sunsets depend on what particles happen to be in the atmosphere.

The Wild West is also part of your culture and mine. And that of anyone else around the world who has watched Westerns, or seen advertisements for Marlboro: my point here is *not* that there is some kind of global homogenezing cultural force, or a US cultural imperialism at work. Rather, I am suggesting that the identity of 'a culture' is fluid, constantly incorporating, adapting, reusing, reacting to, depending on factors which if formulated programmatically might still appear to be outside itself.

Celebrating cultural diversity does not necessarily mean celebrating the relations between a pre-defined group of unitary cultures; it could also mean celebrating diversity within a culture. So for example the fact that someone may think of themselves as having two identities (Pakistani and English) does not make them any less English -- it means that the meaning of English has changed, ever so slightly, since it now includes this particular sub-variant of Englishness as well as all the others.

Yes, John of Gaunt is lamenting a long gone England, but how many millions of Englishmen are doing that right now?

The lament or mourning is not for a 'long gone England' but for an imagined England. The idea of unity, homogeneity and discrete cultural groups is also imaginary. For John of Gaunt it is also a political lament: it is intended to dominate the space of contestation and debate opened up by the transition to a new balance of power in the kingdom in order to help secure the victory of one group over another. To do so it casts one group as the 'rightful' rulers, and generates another group (who do not exist as a group until this happens) to turn them into enemies. Similarly, and this was my argument, the idea of 'Englishness' is not an objective reportable fact -- as you seem to concede -- but always an act of defining boundaries, and of exclusion and inclusion.

'The race relations industry'; 'They': this is the language of conspiracy theory isn't it? Why presume that there is only one 'them'? Why do you assume that they have only one position, rather than that there are disputes, arguments, different positions, temporary alliances?

Either way, I distinctly remember not having anything thrust down my throat (missus!) about being ashamed of 'my' history. I use the quotes not to indicate screaming pinkodom but because although I'd love it, my life thus far wan't on the curriculum.

As for the history of fings what happened in the country where I live and woz dun by the people who lived here - we covered it. We were reduced to smuggling copies of 'Grate Kingz and Queenz' under the table.

Troll, your stuff seems a predictable tired from angry white men who seem desperate to claim some victimhood status, when the facts bear out that the self same are in fact the most likely to have a decent life in this country. Less likely to end up in prison. Less likely to be a victim of crime. More likely to be in a job. More likely to have job security. More likely to earn more than any other demographic category.

Sure, there are people in that demographic for whom all the above will not apply. But that's nothing to do with trendy lefty education; far more to do with the class system. Which Garry and Richard and Peter tend to be fairly quiet about. You couldn't make it up!

Yes, DG. If we talk about `Asian culture` and `Afo Carribean Culture` which we are encouraged to do, then this evidently does seperate them from `English culture` (see above) I didn`t singularise them, perversely the bloody lefties did!!!

I argued earlier: "Celebrating cultural diversity does not necessarily mean celebrating the relations between a pre-defined group of unitary cultures; it could also mean celebrating diversity within a culture." It is you, not the 'bloody lefties' who are claiming that 'Asian culture' or 'Afro Carribean culture' are distinct from 'English culture' rather than being strands *within* English culture, whether anyone likes it or not.

There have been some very interesting debates about British identity and culture on this board before - usually prompted by Momus' spasms of disgust against 'Brutishness'. I am enormously fond of my country and a good deal of its heritage, but I think that uncritical patriotism is dangerous and stupid (whatever 'culture' you're coming from). Being part of a culture isn't about just accepting and celebrating everything in that culture - like other relationships you can't choose (your parents), it's something you negotiate as an individual.

So for instance Agincourt was one battle in one of hundreds of European territorial wars - I'm not ashamed of it but I'm not proud of it either. I'm respectful and awed by my grandfather's fighting in World War I but I'm not proud of it - it was (glibly) a stupid war that should not have been fought. I am very proud of Britain's role in World War II. I'm ashamed not of the fact that Britain had an Empire but that they mismanaged its break-up so apallingly, leading directly to the current conflicts in the Middle East. And I'm proud of the British contributions to pop music, starting in the much0- maligned 1960s. And so on.

The point isn't what I specifically think is shameful or admirable or not but that your attitute to a culture isnt a simple binary celebrate/denigrate one.

The culture you refer to is basically 'stuff that happened before Empire Windrush got here' but in itself wasn't a monoculture. However, it is celebrated. Every pick up the Sun these days? See a Carry on movie on TV?

Most of the things that you say are being deingrated and gradually driven underground are actually so utterley in your face it's untrue. It's the sort of attitude that notices the one day a year when a local council flies the flag of it's twin town, and misses the 364 days when it's a Union Flag.

So, what's your evidence for the denigration of this culture?

Being 'politically incorrect' in Asia Minor in the 100 years before or the 200 years after Christ got you crucified.

Being 'politically incorrect' in Britain in the Dark Ages, especially if you were a woman, got you branded a witch and burnt at the stake.

Being 'politically incorrect' in western Europe in the 1500s made you a target of the Spanish Inquisition.

Being 'politically incorrect' in Salem and such places in the second half of the 17th century sent you up the same road as the uppity women from the Dark Ages.

Being 'politically incorrect' in the USA in the 1950s ended your career, destroyed your reputation and brought in its train years of surveillance by J Edgar and his happy band of freedom-loving minions.

Being 'politically incorrect' in the new millennium gets you a bagging from certain journalists, whose opinion you supposedly care not a rat's arse about, and who still give you a right of reply. For the more exhibitionist and attention-addicted among us it also carries its own hero status and allows you to indulge the first conceit and deceit of the conspiracy theorist: that you are cutting- edge enough and significant enough to be worth the hassle of setting up the conspiracy in the first place.

Martyrdom, like most other things, has become easier in the modern age, hasn't it?

After nearly 2000 years, self-righteous conservatives, the wind has changed and now you're kicking against it. Could it be that you are bitching not so much at the concept of PC but at the fact that you are no longer its definers and administrators?

Aw diddums.

Seriously though, what's your evidence for why examples of English Culture that would be 'banned'? The very idea is redolent of tabloid hysteria rather than any objectively identifiable trend in licensing judgements by Local Authorities.

As for kids who'd breeze through Mastermind answering questions on the life and times of Mohammed - it rings a little hollow. I doubt it. You've used an anecdote, and before condemning such evidence to the dustbin of debate, I'll just say that my brother (a kid) knows bugger all about Mohammed. Knows bugger all about the Pope too, and he goes to a Catholic School. Maybe you just struck lucky.

Those scare stories were just that - scare stories. And, even if an overzealous member of a LEA had made that point, where did it happen, as opposed to being reported by the Daily Mail as The Facts.

As for not being allowed to discuss race? I thought this was about English Culcha? They didn't agree to not talk about race; they signed a pledge saying that discussions about immigration should be handled carefully given the ramifications of unthoughtful comment. See Powell, 1967.

Maybe it was ZOG who dun the blag.

Debate wasn't suppressed over race in the campaign either; the BNP made great play of it in their nice noo suits. They just said it was all the fault of the pakis. That's not 'debate' - it's racist shite.

The deeply confusing jump comes in thinking that the simple presence of a 2%-4% Asian, Carribean, or otherwise "foreign" population somehow complicates that fact. If this is not what you're saying I apologize, but directly above I see you complaining (in SHOCK and HORROR) that "English" people should be a minority in their own postcodes, to which I reply: so fucking what? Are you one of these people who feels his culture is being abused if it doesn't possess an official dominance over a particular piece of land -- the sort of fascist so underconfident in his culture's strength that he sees the presence of any adjacent culture as a threat?

It has always mystified me how so many white Americans and Europeans are completely appalled at the mere hint that they are or might become a minority, even in the space of a single postcode: they fret and cry and complain like babies and it never occurs to them that they've spent years and years telling true minorities that their minority status means nothing.

I know Burnley myself. Guess we'll have to agree to differ.

PS - Are you Nick Griffin?

Beause, as alext has already eloquently pointed out, trying to answer that question means at the very least acknowledging that the mythical-historical englishness that constitutes our imagined community has to be reconsidered and reconstituted (NOT REPLACED, Mr Troll) in the light of changing historical conjunctions of people and place. And that means at least recognising the fluid and shifting nature of the idea of national identity, and that the items on Troll's list don't stop meaning something to someone just because you shift them around a bit in a broader cultural configuration.

As I see it, the question is not whether some bloke in Whitby now (brief list of my Whitby associations: jawbone, Magpie, ships in harbour, jet jewelry, bloody buskers) shares a significant cultural heritage with some bloke in Whitby 500 years ago [considers list of Whitby things; doubts it] as the extent to which some white bloke in Whitby now shares a significant cultural identity with a politicised Asian teenager in Burnley. And I'm saying the latter is simply the more pressing question, and that hypothetically, I'm not prepared to sacrifice someone's rights and quality of life now for the meagre and insubstantial gain of being able to slot my experience unreflexively into a continuum that runs from King Arthur to Sid James. Not that I'm mad keen for that anyway, what with BEING A WOMAN and all.

By picking nits in my wording you're admitting the main point of the post: you're whinging like a sick rhino because you are no longer dominant. Never mind who is, or if nobody is. Dominance is a vital part of your 'dominant culture' and if it aint dominating, it almost ain't a worthwhile culture any more.

Prove that I lie.

Aw, diddums. Everybody, One, two, three, AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

So I find it unsurprising that the most recent political revolt is against the conservative elements of the RIght and the ever- increasing centricity and elitsm of modern leftist tradition. The newest movers-and-shakers are from the ultra left\libertarian left, AKA the anarchists. Much of the post modern anti-globalization movement is from people who are sick of one political wing or the other making promises they can't (or don't intend to) keep. This new phenomenon is towards egalitarian autocracy is growing very fast, especially in the States, but very little press has been given to it. Perhaps it's established insitutions of all types that fear the rising popularity of anarchism. It threatens their legitimacy at their core. The Internet is certainly part of this. It's progressive, and at the same time it's laissez-faire. The unification of an entire planet without hierarchy of any kind. No wonder it's appealing to the burnt-out youths of America and abroad. Globalization is an authoritarian capitalist force intent on running the world like a business. The "populism" of this is libertarian socialism, people who refuse to be bought or sold, people who belive in self sovereignty for all.

Why do you reckon they're not, Troll, given that you live in a democracy? Could it be that the "average British person" really does eat a few lentils now and then?