Talk:British national identity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

To say that somebody is European (as a citizen) meaning that they are a citizen of the European Union would be a foolish pratice which unfortunately has become the norm for the Americas. If you say you are an 'American', it is widely accepted that you are a citizen of the United States of America. However, surely somebody from anywhere in the continent (such as Brazil or Canada) could call themselves Americans (in the geographical sense of the word). This leads to confusion so I hope that it does not become usual practice in the European Union. Due to this, I have changed the page to show that European Union citizen should be used to describe somebody who is a citizen of the European Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.176.20 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britishness is a clearly defined political concept thus the redirect was removed - will be developing page to cover topics such as identity and nationality linking to Blunkett debates, Gordon Brown and the various CRE pronouncements 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not all people residing in England and the United Kingdom are white" well of bloody course they aren't. What a ridiculous sentence. the usual Wikipedia US-centrism/UK users pandering to the USA. Imagine the same sentence used about the US population- it's equally absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.74.240 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Britishness[edit]

It would be preferable if we could expand this into a proper discussion on the nature of Britishness and its inter-relation with other identities in the UK, rather than something specific to Scotland and Scottishness. It seems rather weighted to devote an entire section to Scotland without considering the situation in the other constituent countries. --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Is this better now? By having a more general title, people can now expand to cover the other parts of the UK in subsections (eg 'England and Britishness', etc) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last month the BBC released full details of a poll they held following 10 years of devolution.[1] It had alot of details, including a break down of if people felt More / less British / Scottish etc which may be more useful recent information than the current table which only goes up to 2003, also it did it on a break down of ages which was pretty interesting. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"British" as the term used to describe only the Welsh & Cornish pre 1707[edit]

Why does this article COMPLETELY fail to mention the fact that prior to the creation of Great Britain, the adjective "British" pertained chiefly to the people of British ethnic & linguistic heritage = the Welsh & Cornish AKA the Britons. (As is seen in the articles on the "British Language" - the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish & Breton.) Prior to the formation of Great Britain, the English of Angle/Saxon/Jute as well as later Nordic & Norman extraction have limited cultural connection to the Britons at all. Similarly the Scots hail from Ireland as a cultural group, albeit with extensive anglophone influence. Homoproteus (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly covered in other articles, for example the article on British people which is linked to. I can see scope for a 'History' section, perhaps, but I think a lot of it would just be duplicating what is said elsewhere. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Homoproteus are correct in a sense - but has the specific term "Britishness" ever been used in discussion of the historic ("ancient") Britons? If not, the case for mentioning it in this article is not that strong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Breadandcheese and Ghymyrtle. All the books I've seen on 'Britishness' consider it to be a phenomenon that emerged in the 18th century. In the introduction to Britons: Forging the Nation, Linda Colley (one of the main authors in this field) writes that her the book "is given over to showing... (how) England, Wales and Scotland... acquired some common sense of Britishness between 1707 and 1837." Pondle (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet what is remarkable about that particular notion of "Britishness" is its total artificiality in its stark disassociation with ethnic culture of the original Britons. That "Britishness" as Gwynfor Evans said "is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish." What you are remarking upon is the colonial whitewashing of cultural "Englishness" over the whole of the British Isles. This rebranding of Englishness as Britishness has however succeded in rewriting history for the benefit of the colonial power - it has succeeded in plunging anything that was originally British; i.e. Welsh & Cornish culture into obscurity. Even if that colonial re-writing of history survives and dominates through such forces of mis-information as Wikipedia, the essential bogusness of this form of Britishness will be revealed as the debate about Britishness continues, and as the UK is increasingly consigned to oblivion through the rising forces of devolution and the Celtic independence movements. Homoproteus (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Evans quote - [2] - could usefully be incorporated into the article, particularly if it could be put into some context, e.g. if there is enough info for a Wales para to parallel the Scotland para. In my view the concept is not usefully described as "bogus", but in its modern sense it is (and has been) certainly not universally applicable across "Britain" and its validity may well be diminishing. I confidently expect a visit from BritishWatcher shortly to say how dreadful that is - can I just pre-empt him by saying that, as far as WP is concerned, it doesn't matter.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's 'bogus' in so far as it doesn't describe anything which accurately corresponds to the Britons or their authentic native culture; the (Anglo-Norman) English language and corresponding culture is a composite derived from those languages and cultures of foreign invaders. The use of the term "British" in the modern context is plainly one of royal propaganda, enforced when and where deemed fitting by a predominantly English parliament. Homoproteus (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the concept also reflects the reality that there have been centuries of population movement and intermarriage between the people of all parts of Britain, so that a proportion of the population (albeit quite possibly a declining minority), who have mixed English/Welsh/Scottish/etc. genetic and cultural backgrounds, do identify themselves as "British" rather than "English", "Welsh", etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed entirely. Also (to Homoproteus), it was Scots and Welsh (particularly lowland Scots) who were keen on Britishness initially - it was the English who were the resistant group. It was not a propagandist concept devised by a Royalist English parliament, but a framework of symbols, jargon and sensibilities (developed by Protestant Enlightenmentist Scots) that reference ancient customs used to unite quite diverse peoples. English tastes and customs only came to dominate by way of them being the dominant group in Britain. Furthermore, the Britons were not the original inhabitants of Britain - there was hunter-gatherer and beaker culture much earlier. These kind of popularist, forumist half-baked rumours do nothing to educate people on the reality of their history.
Very much support Ghmyrtle's view here; things like Scottishness and Cornishness are perhaps just as retrospective and revivalist as Britishness - 19th century romantic constructs. I happen to like them, but let's not get silly and nationalistic here. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very amusing that you agree that modern Britishness is an artificial, propagandist construct, while asserting that it's not worth mentioning within the article that it's an artificial, propagandist construct. (I just think its artificiality is more relevant to the modern definition than the article currently suggests, especially while Britishness continues to defy any real definition in the media, while Britain isn't a nation, but a union of nations within a state.) It's also amusing you advise against silly nationalism on an article about "Britishness" - which, if you ask me is as silly as a nationalist concept can get for the above reasons. I'm playing devil's advocate here mainly, but I'm still considering how the article can be adapted to include a Wales section (similar to the Scottish one), which could encorporate Evans' quote. Homoproteus (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's that amusing, really. "Propaganda" suggests that Britishness was somehow preconceived as a way to anglicise those darn free-spirited Celts - it just wasn't like that - that's an intellectually weak and hopeless interpretation of history. The truth is that, for what ever reasons, Britishness evolved via a melting pot of ideas: neo-classicism, sea faring, empire, high society, Protestantism, Germanic culture and Euroscepticism. Yes this is all rather dated, too overtly English and confused (even rejected) in an age of multi-culturalism, devolution and the EU, but to say it's artificial is not WP:NPOV and is WP:OR - for many millions of people (and I mean including millions that embraced Britishness and have since passed on), it was/is real and does have a legitimate, verifiable, developmental history.
Now, Cornish tartan kilts? Wales with a national flag and capital that dates from the mid-20th century? That large parts of the Scottish are not descended from Angles, Saxons, Norsemen, Normans (Scotland was the first country in the world to adopt English as their national language...)? That's just as "artificial" as Britishness is if one wants to go around using talk pages as forums without citing sources. The Evan's quote is just one interpretation in a wider debate - it's hardly the ultimate definition. It's for those reasons I maintain this is a silly and nationalistic point being made. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Every 'nation' can be seen as an imagined community; arguing that one form of national identity is somehow more 'authentic' (whatever that means) than another is pure ethnocentric POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pondle (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia plainly IS a soapbox - just the soapbox of those with apt online citations to refer to when required to make their point. The article is a mess, and plainly illustrates that it has been written as a soapbox with its extensive and unbalanced coverage of how the modern notion of Britishness is perceived within Scotland, while offering no representative coverage of such perceptions within other areas of the British Isles.
Britishness is technically the state or quality defined by such things as are considered "British" - it is clear this useage has been adapted over time (it's not ethnocentric to highlight that prior to the Stuart dynasty, the word "British" was used to refer to the Welsh & Cornish quite exclusively); this article fails to reflect this change in useage over time, and has a decidedly modern bias. It would be just as encyclopedic to focus on notions of a united sense of Britishness during the period of the two World Wars but this period is also totally ignored. Homoproteus (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. As Ghmyrtle said much earlier in the discussion, has the specific term 'Britishness' ever been used in the discussion of the ancient Britons? I haven't seen any examples of this, if you have then we can include it. If not, we already have a disambiguation page for British and articles on the British people, the Britons and their language.Pondle (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Homoproteus - if you have specific ideas as to how the article could be improved - besides the possible para on Wales - please bring them here for discussion. The article does address a particular aspect of "Britishness". If there are other aspects of the term's history which can be supported by citations, no doubt they should also be mentioned - recognising that the article is dealing specifically with "Britishness" and not with alternative definitions of "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably worth noting to Homoproteus that Wikipedia talks aren't here to act as a Maoist Student Journal ("colonial" rhetoric and other dubious assertions which seem to have little to do with the article itself). Some of your points are pretty off key to begin with. There isn't any evidence that, outside of the Western Isles, the majority of the people of Scotland actually derive from Ireland. There is no recorded evidence of a mass genocide against Picts. Irish colonialism during the Middle Ages was mostly in the Western Isles, Gaelic cultural imperialism expanded for a while to other parts, but for instance it wasn't significant in much of the Lowlands. The High Medieval colonial language of Gaelic has much receeded since, though unfortunately Pictish is lost forever.

You don't seem to understand the basic premise of a state and the difference between myths, philosophies and realities. All nations are founded on myth, some of them are just more convincing than others. States on the other hand are solid material realities. Most are convincing from the outside, especially when there hasn't been too much population movement, but from the inside all have regional peculiarities covering them. Britishness is no more manufactured than Spanishness, Germaness, Frenchness or Italianess. Spain and Britain run almost parallel in their nature. Most material Western culture is ultimately derived from Greece, Rome and Christianity. Even today some people are trying to invented a new nation state for Europeans. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this always makes me chuckle...the propensity for the Welsh to describe the English as "Brits", little realising that they're far more "Brits" (in the original sense) than the English are. Furthermore, they seem to be under the misapprehension that "Brit" is something of an insult. Personally, I'm extremely proud to be a "Brit". However, my previous paragraph reinforces an "us and them" mentality that I'm keen to dispel: whether Welsh, Scottish, Manx, Northern Irish or English, we're all "Brits"., and long may this continue. We're all part of "Team GB" at then end of the day.... 82.5.68.95 (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very odd because from an English perspective when I think of who is British, I think of the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish first of all. Burraron (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary[edit]

"Britishness" is an invented term just like "Europeanish" would be and is a term coined by Gordon Brown's term as prime minister of the UK. The word does not exist in any dictionary!"Britishness is not something you're born with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.197.55 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, where the first use of the term is dated to 1857. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, the Oxford English Dictionary Online. I've now added this to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all terms in human languages are 'invented terms'. --Breadandcheese (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 census[edit]

This article should be updated in the light of the 2011 census results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.44.252 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. As a start, I've added the BBC report on the census results - this - to the external links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Britishness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Britishness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Britishness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Britishness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British values[edit]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published Kaihsu (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britishness → British national identity – Too informal, 'British national identity' would be a much WP:PRECISE title for this article. This would also be WP:CONSISTENT with English national identity, Scottish national identity and Canadian identity, which I find to be a bonus. Heanor (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support per nom. Super Ψ Dro 15:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Britishness" does seem a little too informal and vague for a professional encyclopedia article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Evolution Of British Identity[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20201101-the-truth-about-british-stoicism

We should talk about how British identity has evolved from “sweatiness, drunkenness, meat-eating, anger, violence, simple-mindedness and melancholia” around the time of Shakespeare to that of British Stoicism during the august, glory days of the Empire. 185.193.170.240 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_national_identity&oldid=1214220085"