Englishmen, and Other Aborigines

[Errigal]

An interesting article by a legitimately unhappy Englishman:

Englishmen, and Other Aborigines
Posted by A. Millar on March 07, 2007



I was about ten years old when my school class was asked to fill out a form listing our basic details. Name, address, we were filling it all out with no trouble--until we came upon the question regarding our religious affiliation. Sure, the one or two Roman Catholics knew, and passed right along, but the rest of us looked at each other, confused. Commotion burst out across the room as we tried to extract the correct answer from one another. “If you don’t know what religion you are,” our teacher interrupted sternly, “then you’re Church of England.” The logic of her proposition escaped me, but my parents later assured me that not only I, but our entire family was in fact Church of England, despite never having attended church, or read so much as a single sentence of the Bible.
The vague and mysterious quality of religion must have impressed me because I developed a curiosity and eventually an insatiable appetite for anything religious (ones where had to do something that is, even it was just turn up). Roman Catholicism, Zen Buddhism, Tantric Hinduism, even plain old Zoroastrianism – I flirted with them all. Of course, I celebrated Christmas, Easter, etc., with my family, but, as with the vast majority of English families, these events were not religious per se. It is an uncomfortable confession, but I must admit, I believe that I was envious of the ethnic minorities. They not only had their customs, they had their religion. No one could take away their Holy Days.
You will imagine how delighted I was recently when I discovered that I myself have become a member of an ethnic minority, and, better still, have joined the lofty likes of the “aborigine Australian” and the “native American;” yes, I am no longer British, but am rather “Indigenous British.” How did I discover this? By cracking some Davinci Code like puzzle? No, I simply kept hearing this strange phrase, “indigenous British,” on B.B.C radio. It flowed so naturally, and from so many different types of people, but I wondered if I had heard correctly at first. Perhaps they had said “ingenious British.” True, it is an unusual day indeed, when the British are praised by the people of Britain, but still I wondered. To confirm I entered the phrase into the B.B.C. website, and lo and behold, there I was! Indigenous-British-me. My outlook on life has been entirely altered. Naturally, I am sad that I shall not live to see the reservations or casinos that will undoubtedly be granted to our descendants by a future British government, though I am looking forward to the revival of our culture, albeit on a smaller scale.
Aside from these future advantages, however, there is something utterly ominous about this designation. A few decades ago, politicians promoted the idea that immigrants in Britain would assimilate into traditional British culture. Today such an idea would now be considered terribly politically incorrect, if not openly racist, but it was also a proposition that was also entirely factually wrong, and one that had been disproved since time immemorial. Far from being given a place of honor, by and large it is the indigenous people that are assimilated if not disappeared into the foreign culture. Despite the literal meaning of ‘aborigine,’ ‘native,’ and ‘indigenous’ connecting the people indicated to the land, these words connotes ‘inferior,’ ‘backward.’
...

The article continues (source)

[Crvena zvezda]

Native Americans suffered what they have referred to as “genocide” by the hand of white Europeans (though we white Europeans love to pretend that it was the Americans who did it).

Considering that most indians (native americans) died from deceases not present in the America's it can hardly be considered a genocide. Their was no mass extermination campaign most died fighting superior armies and because they couldn't adapt. Fuirther more the native population was never large since their culture was not advanced. All the settlers needed to win the west was the gun and the horse. Not only that most died due to their resistance against settlers. Further more, you can't blame all Europeans the blame rests mainly one a few nations who actively had colonization attempts, the spanish, french, portuguese, english and dutch and others. Considering the Dutch and others never took a mass scale colonization in their colonies they can be taken off the list of blame. The portuguese mostly settled coastal regions where few natives lived. The spanish mostly settled coastal regions and in some of the former colonies spain had most populations are of mixed breed and so clearly that isn't genocide. The French colonization was too small tyo have such a big impact and the French had cordial relations with native groups in their regions. Thus logically the blame or most of it rests on the English. Hence, this English man is trying to transfer blame away from his nation.

Yes, as if she’s not in the news enough with her newly shaven head, that ambassador of rock ‘n’ roll suicide, “Britney Spears,” is now Cockney Rhyming Slang for either “tears” or “beers” depending on your preference.

This man is an idiot. She does not represent rock music in any way. I know rock has been dead for a long time and few good acts exist now and most of the good bands while have their members die soon, but do not brind insult to injury.

Perhaps because the English – unlike the Scottish or Welsh or even Cornish – have lost all memory and knowledge of their ancient language, and have only a vague idea of their ancient culture, that England more than Wales or Scotland can be equated with liberalism. The Welsh and the Scots want to preserve their language and culture, while the English, in a feeling of intellectual superiority, feel that the tiny island of the United Kingdom should be multilingual, just as it should be multicultural. Or, at least that has been the trend.

In his paper, “When Was Wales” (published in Nationalism in Europe – 1815 to the Present), Gwyn A. Williams notes correctly that the old Welsh language is entirely accessible to the Welshman, while Old English is entirely inaccessible to the modern Englishman (if he has even heard of Old English). He makes a poignant and depressing statement:

“The British nation and the British state are clearly entering a process of dissolution, into Europe or the mid-Atlantic or a post imperial fog. Britain has begun its long march out of history.

I like this quote. Particularly the last part.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Thus logically the blame or most of it rests on the English. Hence, this English man is trying to transfer blame away from his nation.

I guess that that's the turning point at which the English start to label others as "whites", where they can swift blames. Masters of deceit, they are.

[Milesian]

You will imagine how delighted I was recently when I discovered that I myself have become a member of an ethnic minority, and, better still, have joined the lofty likes of the “aborigine Australian” and the “native American;” yes, I am no longer British, but am rather “Indigenous British.”

Indigenous British? I thought he said he was English

[Brigid]

I guess that that's the turning point at which the English start to label others as "whites", where they can swift blames. Masters of deceit, they are.

You're reading too much into it I think Mynydd. Colonists most likely coined this term to distinguish very foreign natives of the lands they colonised or visited from Europeans, who were more familiar to them, and relatively, they considered to be not so different from themselves. Most likely, distinguishing these natives from themselves to such a degree helped them resolve any feelings of bad conscience and perhaps gain public support from English citizens (or at least indifference, not opposition from the English public).

Originally Posted by Milesian

Indigenous British? I thought he said he was English

Agreed. "Mighty conquerer" would be a more apt description.


The English have nothing to be ashamed of... the strong over-taking the weak is the way of the world. Survival of the fittest. If the Anglo-Saxons have used this concept to their advantage... then all power to them (or, I should say "us" since I am an Anglo ). But then, maybe the Anglo-Saxons are showing themselves in recent years to be really quite weak, considering that they are so willing to allow much of the world to use guilt as a weapon against them. Actually no, we don't even "allow" it as such... we welcome it... and encourage it at this stage in the game. Pitiful really. Pathetic.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Indigenous British? I thought he said he was English

Isn't that his point really? He's saying that he wants out of this definition of British which includes Pakistanis and Jamaicans. He sees himself as English.

Here's a related post by someone else on the same subject:

Taki\'s Top Drawer: Patriotic Song For England

The song is called "Roots"

+ YouTube Video

Don't get me wrong though, I know this song is not all that's happening on the Other Island. A site linked to from the above webpage called "The Monarchist" is a perfect example. They have truly retreated into a world of their own imagination. I noticed the Church of Ireland and historical Irish peerages do not exist in their universe (so I’ll be getting no love from them I suppose).

Israel does seem to find friends among this bunch though. Here are two comments on an article discussing Israel joining the Commonwealth!:

You could make a pretty strong case for Israel, however, and it would be interesting to know whether your namesake Beaconsfield, one Benjamin Disraeli, the great British Jewish PM, would support such a move. I tend to think he would.

and:

Israel would be a welcome brother - but I fear the level of anti-Israeli, if not anti-semitic, sentiment in Britain is simply too great. No politician would risk such a move. The hoo-hah over the Lebanese war this past summer shows that explicitly siding with Israel is not a popular move. Yet our peoples are joined by centuries of friendship, a common religious heritage, values, and a number of constitutional similarities. I would like nothing more than for the noble Israelis to join our fellowship; yet I would hope they would swear allegiance to our Queen, since any enlargement of the Commonwealth without the Crown at its centre, will quickly marginalize the Monarchy.

The precious gift of sanity seems to have slipped through their fingers. We are clearly not speaking of the “Israel” which currently exists in our world.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

The French colonization was too small tyo have such a big impact and the French had cordial relations with native groups in their regions. Thus logically the blame or most of it rests on the English. Hence, this English man is trying to transfer blame away from his nation.

*coughs*

The French colonization had a huge impact on the Native Americans. They had trading posts and they married Native women (creating the Métis). They had all of the Maritimes as well as the best farming land in southern Quebec (now New France). They also fought with the Natives and brought their diseases and addictions (alcohol, etc.). This had hardly any affect? They were the first contact the North American natives had with Europeans for what? The Norse came around 800-1000, I can't remember, so maximum 800 years or so. I doubt this had less effect.

And the Spanish did take over the South American Natives and practically destroyed their culture. I doubt this is little effect.

Learn history before you start to blame other people.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I guess that that's the turning point at which the English start to label others as "whites", where they can swift blames. Masters of deceit, they are.

That's me. Shifting the blame, as usual.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Indigenous British? I thought he said he was English

That's the term the BBC said. You know, the BritishBroadcasting Corporation?

Originally Posted by Brigid

Most likely, distinguishing these natives from themselves to such a degree helped them resolve any feelings of bad conscience and perhaps gain public support from English citizens (or at least indifference, not opposition from the English public).

Bad conscience for what?

That's caused by them marrying Native women and trading with them, and exploring North America with them, right? And that's why they didn't enslave them too.

The English have nothing to be ashamed of... the strong over-taking the weak is the way of the world.

*cough*TheIrisharen'tthatweak/TheBritishcrownarejustbeingstupidinthismatter*cough*

Survival of the fittest. If the Anglo-Saxons have used this concept to their advantage... then all power to them (or, I should say "us" since I am an Anglo ). But then, maybe the Anglo-Saxons are showing themselves in recent years to be really quite weak, considering that they are so willing to allow much of the world to use guilt as a weapon against them.

Not all "British" are Anglo-Saxons. You forgot about the other tribes entirely.

I think it's today, survival of the intelligent. One must be intelligent to manouver around politics.

[Crvena zvezda]

I forgot to mentions this in defense of Europeans. By the leate 16th, early 17th century the natives had already been exterminated. This is before large scale massive settlement begun. They killed themselves by fighting each other or they died by disease.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

The French colonization had a huge impact on the Native Americans. They had trading posts and they married Native women (creating the Métis). They had all of the Maritimes as well as the best farming land in southern Quebec (now New France). They also fought with the Natives and brought their diseases and addictions (alcohol, etc.). This had hardly any affect? They were the first contact the North American natives had with Europeans for what? The Norse came around 800-1000, I can't remember, so maximum 800 years or so. I doubt this had less effect.

Again. French colonization at it's height was a couple of tens of thousands and they were mainly concentrated in one region, along the Saint Lawrence river in Quebec. The English had a largwer impact as they had more people. Considering the French had the entire Mississippi river basin and settled only the small coast in what is now louisiana it is clear yo've exageratted, not only that from what i know most French settled their were expelled by the Britis from what is Canada.

Second, mostiindians didn't farm and even if they did they were semi-noamdic and would only farm land for a few years. So clearly they didn't put much emphasis on farming.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

Again. French colonization at it's height was a couple of tens of thousands and they were mainly concentrated in one region, along the Saint Lawrence river in Quebec. The English had a largwer impact as they had more people. Considering the French had the entire Mississippi river basin and settled only the small coast in what is now louisiana it is clear yo've exageratted, not only that from what i know most French settled their were expelled by the Britis from what is Canada.

Hem, hem. Maritime provinces?

And they weren't all expelled. That's why we have good ol' Québec.

The point is that the English presence was after the French presence. So the first European influence on the Native Americans was indeed, French.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Susi

Hem, hem. Maritime provinces?

And they weren't all expelled. That's why we have good ol' Québec.

The point is that the English presence was after the French presence. So the first European influence on the Native Americans was indeed, French.

Like I said. I'm a Canadian citizen because my mom has citizenship, I've only been there once for a total of three weeks so I don't really know about Canadian history nor do I care but I remember hearing something about the British expelling some French group after they took over Quebec.

[Susi]

Actually they expelled the Acadians in the Maritimes. I think the others pledged allegiance to the British crown.

You have to come visit now for longer than 3 weeks.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Brigid

You're reading too much into it I think Mynydd. Colonists most likely coined this term to distinguish very foreign natives of the lands they colonised or visited from Europeans, who were more familiar to them, and relatively, they considered to be not so different from themselves. Most likely, distinguishing these natives from themselves to such a degree helped them resolve any feelings of bad conscience and perhaps gain public support from English citizens (or at least indifference, not opposition from the English public).

How the word was coined in first place is of marginal importance to the discussion. What matters here is how it has been interpreted at different times to suit the agenda of each moment. That is dishonest.

Agreed. "Mighty conquerer" would be a more apt description.

The English have nothing to be ashamed of... the strong over-taking the weak is the way of the world. Survival of the fittest. If the Anglo-Saxons have used this concept to their advantage... then all power to them (or, I should say "us" since I am an Anglo ).

The time to show who is fittest is now. If you take the trends of Anglo-Saxons leaving the country as immigrants from new and old take over the island, you will have to agree that they are not faring very well. If we are fair and go by your logics, we will have to say all power to the "Mighty Conquerors" (?). Of course you know that in this case the English are the conquered, not the conquerors.

Vae Victis!

But then, maybe the Anglo-Saxons are showing themselves in recent years to be really quite weak

Considering that this is the first time that the island sees an invasion (well, if we except 1066), I would say that it is not that they are showing themselves quite weak "in recent years", but that their weakness has been left exposed once their hideout is no longer a safe haven where to run and hide.