Racial slur as man calls Welsh woman "English"

reply to post by ipsedixit


Being a Canadian, I assume you watch the Commonwealth Games, where you would also see English, Scottish and Northern Irish teams...unlike the Olympics, where the team is credited either as the UK or as Great Britain.

Unlike the former German principalities, electorships and duchys, the UK is made up of two separate Kingdoms. Which had crowned heads of state. Perhaps, while missing the fact that the Welsh victim of the assault was a woman, you also missed the fact that Wales was never a kingdom and never had a king. As historically bogus as it was, Braveheart did at least get one thing right: Scotland was an independent nation with a King. Rather like another pair of neighbours sharing a long, unguarded northern/southern border, but with distinct territorial claims and political systems...

Bavaria was a kingdom with a king, Prussia was a kingdom with a king, Hanover was not, Saxony was not.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

Thankyou for the instruction HowlrunnerIV. I am in awe of your erudition as I am of your avatar. Perhaps you could enlighten me further.

Why, pray tell, do not all of the various and sundry peoples who inhabit the "British Isles" unite together in common cause to field a football team composed of the best players who are British citizens, a team which would surely seize and hold the World Cup in perpetuity? Is there a lesson in multiculturalism here? Can it be carried to excess?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Why, pray tell, do not all of the various and sundry peoples who inhabit the "British Isles" unite together in common cause to field a football team composed of the best players who are British citizens, a team which would surely seize and hold the World Cup in perpetuity? Is there a lesson in multiculturalism here? Can it be carried to excess?

Even when united we wouldn't win a sausage mate and each country would argue they have the best players anyhoo

The lesson would be one of futility

Dolt! - Sorry

[edit on 18/12/2007 by skibtz]

Dolt! - Sorry

[edit on 18/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz

This is the sort of defeatism that multiculturalism engenders. The people who invented soccer now believe that even if they put all their best players together instead of dividing them into, what, three groups, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they still couldn't win a sausage.

I have to tell you that the same inward looking, victim soothing, me or nothing, my way or the highway mentality, has reared it's head in Canadian ice hockey, where certain people in Quebec (a self-styled nation) want to have their own hockey team to compete internationally.

Fortunately the majority still relish the sweet havoc of victory, and will put aside such trifles as race, language and religion to achieve it.

Too bad the British have lost all that. Over here, we still celebrate the British army's burning of Washington! This sort of thing could still be done with a truly national football team. It's a pity.





[edit on 18-12-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
you also missed the fact that Wales was never a kingdom and never had a king.

Depends who you ask:

Geriant - 7th Century
Gruffud Ap Cynan - 12th
Owain Gwynedd - 12th

Parts of Wales also claimed Kingdon status as well (especially Gwynedd). But Wales was always a bit fragmented at best.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This is the sort of defeatism that multiculturalism engenders.

The UK as a whole do not have the players to win a World Cup or an Olympic gold medal. Maybe in a few years but certainly not now.

It is not defeatism . It is realsim.

If all the Canadians in the world believed they could win the World Cup it would not make it happen.

Besides, the Olympics is not too credible for most footie fans as the rules state that the maximum age of a footballer is 23. Weird!

The people who invented soccer

We did not invent the game, it has existed for hundreds of years. We polished it up and added some rules. I think that England were the first to leagualise it

[quote...now believe that even if they put all their best players together instead of dividing them into, what, three groups, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they still couldn't win a sausage.

That is just my opinion of course

There is no doubting, if you chose the best from each country you would have a better team but still not one that is good enough. And none of the players would be happy as most footballers grow-up dreaming of playing for their country. Not U.K.F.C. (Does have a ring to it though )

I have to tell you that the same ... has reared it's head in Canadian ice hockey, where certain people in Quebec (a self-styled nation) want to have their own hockey team to compete internationally.

All I know is that the countries that from the UK are happy to have their own identity. Personally, I couldn't give a toss either way

Fortunately the majority still relish the sweet havoc of victory, and will put aside such trifles as race, language and religion to achieve it.

Too bad the British have lost all that. Over here, we still celebrate the British army's burning of Washington! This sort of thing could still be done with a truly national football team. It's a pity.

We are not too sad about it. The Premiership is arguably the best football league in the world. A league represented by players from all corners of the UK and indeed the world.

[edit on 18/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by skibtz

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Fortunately the majority still relish the sweet havoc of victory, and will put aside such trifles as race, language and religion to achieve it.

Too bad the British have lost all that. Over here, we still celebrate the British army's burning of Washington! This sort of thing could still be done with a truly national football team. It's a pity.

skibtz:

We are not too sad about it. The Premiership is arguably the best football league in the world. A league represented by players from all corners of the UK and indeed the world.

Maybe I've misread the whole political dynamism of the UK. Is the UK devolving? A word of advice. If the UK is devolving, try to keep this information from the Danes.


[edit on 18-12-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


The UK has started to de-centralise and devolve to an extent.

Not sure if it will continue or not though.

To be honest I don't know much about it at all so will go away for a few days and have a read up. Ah, feck. It can wait 'til after christmas

There is a bit on it here

I'm in two minds about the whole issue... because I have both English and Welsh ancestry and I'm proud of both.

And I'm mystified as to how anyone could think nationality has anything to do with race. Nations are artificial constructs made by and defined by humans (which is also why I find nationalism odd... I can't understand people who go on about what 'Englishness' means to them because, at the end of the day, what is it but a state of mind? There's no 'English race' - the English are very diverse racially... Angles, Saxons, Normans, Romans, Celts, Scandinavians, etc. England is far from a united place anyway. It was three separate kingdoms just over a thousand years ago and even today there are some very strong regional rivalries within England... North and South, Yorkshire and Lancashire, etc. which people overlook.) Race is something entirely different, down to DNA and genetics.

What a strange world we live in. I believe we need to have a long hard think about the laws around this issue.

[edit on 18/12/07 by Ste2652]

reply to post by melatonin


It may depend on who you ask, but asking those three is slightly moot



The view, accepted outside Wales, is that while those three may have declared themselves Kings*, none of them was able to completely unite the Welsh under their rule and pass that united rule to a successor. At any one time Wales had three (or more) separate Princes, two (or more) of whom would have had to accept lower status in order for one to become King of the Welsh.

These princes were the inspiration for Longshanks (and every monarch with issue since) to name the (male) heir to the English (later British) throne the Prince of Wales (which I can spell, Tywysog Cymru, but can't pronounce).

It seems Charles was the first one to be actually popular in Wales at the time of his investiture...

*and being King of Powys didn't make you King of Wales or the Welsh as a collective whole...A bit like Alfred the Great of Wessex...

Originally posted by Ste2652
...I'm mystified as to how anyone could think nationality has anything to do with race.

I am surprised by some people's amazement, shock and horror at the thought that race and nationality could be connected by the law.

It is as if someone had just said that grapefruit and polar bears are genetically linked!!

Nations are artificial constructs made by and defined by humans

The Earth, countries, nationalities et al are all artificial constructs made by and defined by humans.

(which is also why I find nationalism odd... I can't understand people who go on about what 'Englishness' means to them because, at the end of the day, what is it but a state of mind?

I'm with you on that one. I might consider myself to be a lazy a*se sometimes, I certainly dont sit there everynow and then qureying my Englishness

Race is something entirely different

It is entirely different to nationality and colour. However, the three elements (race, colour and nationality) are covered by the law under the term racism.

I believe we need to have a long hard think about the laws around this issue.

I dont see the point in creating a new law that deals with nationality. It is a little like asking for the courts to scrap murder charge and introduce a law for stabbing, another for shooting, another for strangulation, another for killing someone with a table leg, another for killing someone with a golf club and on and on...