Polite Kid

...and apathy?
A: I don't know and I don't care.
Okay, it's an old joke. But it seems relevant to my post today.
Earlier I happened to be watching a show on BBC America with a friend. The show was 'How Clean Is Your House?' (I confess, I am fascinated with these cleaning shows). In the episode, Aggie and Kim, the ''cleaning gurus" were in the Tower Hamlets borough of London helping to fight an infestation of rats. Apparently rats are increasing substantially in numbers in the UK. I guess that's what a huge increase in urban crowding plus squalid conditions brings.
But during the course of the program, Aggie and Kim visited a school in the area, and I was so shocked by the fact that I saw not one White British face in the classroom (except for those of Kim and Aggie, and maybe, possibly, the teacher) that I remarked aloud to my friend "There's not one British child there! That's the future of Britain.'
Granted, London, or one area of London does not represent all of Britain, just as New York or L.A. don't represent America. But all that we are reading about demographic trends in the UK, coupled with the pro-diversity, pro-immigration fanaticism of the elites spells a mostly nonwhite future for the UK. Now, I've been reading that and contemplating it for some time now, but somehow seeing it in this TV show in the form of the absence of rosy-cheeked British children in that classroom sort of brought it home visually for me.
But here's the dilemma I began to ponder: my friend reacted somewhat to the facts as I pointed them out to her, but it's obvious that although she may find it unfair or surprising, she clearly does not share my chagrin or my outrage about the loss of the UK and the marginalizing (or disappearance) of what was, historically, one of the great nations of people in the world.
To her, it's obviously not an emotional issue or even a visceral issue as it is for me. Maybe the fact that I have always been an Anglophile and the fact that the majority of my ancestors hailed from those isles makes it much more personal and hence more tragic to me.
But even when we talk about the homeland of my friend's ancestors, which is also being invaded and demographically swamped with third-worlders, she does not have any reaction other than one of detached annoyance. Her attitude seems to be, implicitly, ''that's too bad, but what can you do?" It's an attitude of resignation and acceptance.
And many people who may care somewhat about America are indifferent to what is happening in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Maybe we who have a larger sympathy with our brethren elsewhere in the West are a 'different', anomalous group of people. I am beginning to think so, and that is not a promising fact if it is true.
So here's the question I am mulling over. We often assume, those of us who are troubled by the demographic assault on our homeland, that what is needed is to 'wake people up' to the facts, and that, having awoken, they will rally to the cause. But will they?
It seems to me that for many people, knowledge alone will not arouse any impulse toward self-defense or defense of our people. Knowledge is not what's lacking, in most cases. Many people have heard the facts recited, but they simply refuse to process it, or they shrug and say 'what do we do?' and go on about their lives as if everything were fine.
We can impart knowledge to people, and that is something I try to do somewhat on this blog as well as in real life, but there has to be more. We need to cause people CARE about what is happening. If they don't intrinsically feel great love for this country or for their own people and heritage, they will not be roused to act in any way. What has happened to real love for people and country, or more immediately, home, hearth, and kin? It seems most people are content to hide their heads in the sand while our country is destroyed.
Can people who do not care be moved to care? Or is that feeling something that is either there, or it isn't?
I've been accused of being too subjective on this blog; I plead guilty. First, I'm a woman, and women are by nature prone to being more subjective and more emotional. We are the weaker sex in that sense. On the other hand, sometimes it is emotion and subjectivity that give us the motivation to stand up and to do what we can to stave off impending disaster. Those who are jaded and bereft of any deep attachment toward their people and their home will remain jaded and detached.
Can we succeed in stimulating any kind of positive emotional response in the uncaring and the indifferent? I don't know, but I certainly intend to keep on trying.

Labels: Britain, Demographics, Displacement, Diversity, Mass Immigration

'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' - George Orwell, 1984
British history 'needs rewrite'
By Brian Wheeler
Political reporter, BBC News, at the Labour conference
British history should be rewritten to make it "more inclusive", says Trevor Phillips, the head of the new human rights and equality commission.
He said Muslims were also part of the national story and "sometimes we have to go back into the tapestry and insert some threads that were lost".
He quoted the example of the Spanish Armada, which was held up by the Turks at the request of Queen Elizabeth I.
"It was the Turks who saved us," Mr Phillips told a Labour fringe meeting.
Let's use our heritage to rewrite that story so it is truly inclusive... so we have an identity which binds us in the stormy times we are going to have in the next century.''
Mr Phillips said he had also been persuaded of the need for a written constitution, saying the UK needed to be "more explicit in our understanding about how we treat each other".
He said population changes and immigration were happening at unprecedented rate and there was "no going back".
So it was no longer enough to assume people would inherit the values which bound the country together.
[...]
"We have to have a more explicit set of understandings which we can all share about how we treat each other and we talk to each other and they have to be based on real values.
"I think the prime minister is right to talk about values but I think what is important is not the abstract values. Freedom is shared by all sorts of people."
If there was a written constitution it would have to be "an expression which is native and right for us".
[...]
He said the abolition of the slave trade, for example, could be retold as being part of the English radical tradition.''
"Part of the job of heritage is to cognitize - give physical existence - to that national story.''
So here we see the actual ongoing process of trying to give birth to a 'proposition nation', a nation formed on the basis of some cobbled-together, 'inclusive' national 'story.' And the process ain't pretty.
The use of the word 'story' is rather telling; when I was a child, and my parents doubted some tall tale I related to them, they would say 'are you telling me a story'? For a long time, in my mind, the word 'story' signified a falsehood, a concocted deception, a whopper, as well as meaning a fairy tale from one of my beloved books. Such seems to be the meaning of the term as Phillips is using it here.
Britain does not need a 'national story'; it has a history, a factual history, which has been known, recorded, and honored for many centuries. It does not need a fractured fairy tale concocted of bits and pieces of multicultural confabulations, all with the intention of making outsiders feel 'included' and respected. Even worse is Phillips shameful attempt to credit Moslems with having saved England in the days of Elizabeth I.
I do hope the British people, and by that I mean the rightful heirs of Britain, the descendants of the historic people of that island, will refuse to let their history be rewritten in the service of leftist propagandizing. It is even worse than mere propagandizing; it amounts to eradicating the real history of a people and the record of their considerable accomplishments. It is an act of historical 'ethnic cleansing.'
Some might ask why an American should care. First, anyone who cares about truth and about justice should care. Secondly, I care because Britain's history includes the lives of many of my ancestors. Until the 17th century, the majority of my ancestors lived in Britain, so their history is also mine, as it is for many Americans of British descent.
Here is the Telegraph's version, with a comment thread following. The comments are very heartening, because at least when I read the thread, there were many irate comments. The British people haven't been completely subjugated, if the comments are any indication. And in case the comments have been edited since I read the thread, here are the first two:
Mr Phillips,
There is no "us" with you and my benighted English people. You are not "us". Rewriting history won't make you "us". I totally reject you.
Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2007 10:38 PM
Report this comment
I love trevor phillips. No one else left with that much balsiness in British Society. Pity he's out for revenge against the Brits,and their history.
You cant change history.Only suppress it Trevor. Full marks for cheek though.
Posted by Big Bill on September 25, 2007 10:31 PM
I agree with the commenters quoted above.
On a related note, the BBC website has a thread soliciting suggestions for a new motto for Britain. Most of the suggestions were silly, but here are a couple of ironic ones:
'Rachel Fox' suggests 'We welcome one and all.'
Simon Rooke suggests 'Magnus frater spectat te - Big Brother is watching you
Christian Cook suggests 'Mostly harmless.'
Truly, I hope this multicultural madness will not continue; maybe the sheer excesses of the left will lead to some kind of awakening. All of us in the West are under siege, and before we can stop the onslaught, it must first be recognized.
''For history is to the nation as memory is to the individual.'' - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Labels: Britain, Cucultural Marxism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Revisionist History

Leo McKinstry, writing for the Express, asks 'Just what does it mean to be called British these days?' It's a pertinent question these days, what with mass immigration threatening to overwhelm much of the West, or former Christendom.
We could just as appropriately ask 'just what does it mean to be called American these days?' The difference between our country and the UK is that Britain, unlike this country of ours, was not a nation of immigrants, or 'multicultural from the beginning', as leftwing propagandists shamelessly assert.
Our country, though I reject the ''nation of immigrants'' label, did, gradually, admit many immigrants from very disparate places and cultures, and we did so at considerable cost to our sense of commonality and our very identity. Nowadays almost anyone who has set foot on this soil with an intention to stay here is deemed an 'American', even if they speak no English, and even if they are openly hostile to the people of this country and our traditions. Sadly, this seems to be the case in Britain, too, though their subjection to 'diversity' is of a much more recent origin.
One element of the British identity crisis is that ironically, it is the English who seem to be marginalized and at a disadvantage, in the country which is at its core, their country. Many Americans seem not to be aware that 'British' is a kind of civic identity, whereas 'English' is an ethnic designation. Aliens and foreigners can become 'British' by obtaining a British passport and obtaining all the rights of British nationality -- but they can never be 'English', because English is an exclusive identity, based on lineage, not documents. Many Americans seem unable to grasp that the Scots are British in a civic sense, as are the Welsh, but both groups would likely object to being termed 'English', as they have their own, separate, ethnic identity. They can fly their national flags, but the English are not given the same leeway to express their ethnicity.
I would liken this to the position of White, old-stock Americans, who are oftentimes of English descent, lacking an ethnic identity. The descendants of the Irish and Scots, including Ulster Scots, have their identity and their symbols and their pride, but the Anglo-American is the invisible and silent ethnicity. In a sense I suppose this could in part be attributed to having been dominant for a long time, and taking such dominance for granted, until one day we wake up dispossessed and pushed to the margins of the society our ancestors created here.
But perhaps the English, in a similar situation in their land, will become more conscious of their own identity as they face dispossession and domination by outsiders. In a world in which everyone around you is very assertive about their own race and ethnicity and religion, it's hard to remain unaware of one's own roots and origins.
One point with which I will disagree with McKinstry in this article is his statement about the European immigrants of older times. He says that
''...the small numbers that arrived here, such as Irish labourers, or Jewish or French refugees fleeing religious persecution, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture that built our civilisation.''
I disagree that there is a 'Judeo-Christian culture.' There is a Jewish culture and a Christian one. Their commonalities are few; they share very different outlooks on God, life, and human nature. They live by rather different moral codes.
It might have been a turning point for our country, when, as the proposition nation idea grew, we began to think that there is a common Judeo-Christian culture that binds us together. Lately, building on that idea, we have the talk about the 'three Abrahamic faiths', Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a false notion, that we share some kind of common ground. The religious ''right'' in this country is thoroughly persuaded that there is such a bond, though it does not really exist.
It's with such small steps that Western countries gradually found ourselves in the multicultural soup. There needs to be a re-thinking of some of the deceptive notions that put us here.

Labels: Britain, England, Ethnonationalism, Multuculturalism, Nationality, Proposition Nation

Can any of us imagine an American equivalent of Hannan saying similar things to our president?
Hannan's blog is here, and I see from a quick perusal of it that he opposes multiculturalism but is also pro-Obama. Still, I have to admire his plain-spokenness and his forthright tone. Our politicians, by contrast, must be trained to be mealy-mouthed forked-tongue con men.

Labels: Britain, Europe, Government Spending, Politicians, United Kingdom

Over at An Englishman's Castle, blogger An Englishman lists his "50 reasons to love America." This makes a nice contrast to the usual anti-American sentiment one finds on the Internet, and it reminds us that not everybody on the other side of the pond loathes us, as so many American insist.
So go over and read the thread there; it's interesting to read what people value about America.
I'd like to see America draw closer to our cousins across the Pond; we are all in the same boat, and I wish them well in our common struggle. I don't take part in the Europe-bashing or UK-bashing that some in our country are too quick to engage in.
I may be inspired to write 50 reasons to love the British people.

Labels: American Culture, Britain, United Kingdom, Western Culture

There is an interesting piece from Occidental Observer, titled 'British Genetics, 101.' Now, I'm aware that not everyone here is very interested in the genetics of Britain, but in the comments 'ethnonationalist' states that the effort to replace the British population with an amalgamation from many countries is not directed at 'the White race' per se.
He says
What is going on in Britain is genocide against the native English population.
If it were a "White genocide", than Poles, Bulgarians, Irish, Lithuanians, etc. would not be permitted to immigrate to England.''
I've wondered about the rationale behind the importation of many White immigrants to not only the UK but also Ireland. If it is indeed all about an anti-White agenda, then why would this policy be pursued? On the face of it, it does seem as though the effort is to introduce many disparate genetic strains into the UK, and it does seem as though the immigrants are mostly from the Third World. But where do the Eastern Europeans fit into this agenda?
I know that the official story is that they are 'guest workers' who will go home once they earn some money. And apparently quite a few do return home but a great many stay. And regardless of whether they are of the same race as the natives of the British Isles, they are a different people with a different religion and culture. English (or Irish or Scots or Welsh) are not interchangeable with Poles or Lithuanians.
it does seem that ethnonationalist is right on this score. And it does seem that the English, the ethnic English, are the target because the other groups in the UK are encouraged in their nationalistic aspirations, while the English are not even treated as a legitimate ethnic group. One can be 'British' because it is an inclusive identity; immigrants can get a British passport or citizenship and call themselves 'British' while being Pakistani or African or Caribbean. But no one can be English except by blood, so it is a 'discriminatory' identity, too exclusive for the multicultists. In a way it's analogous to the way the label 'American' can be promiscuously applied to people from everywhere, and is therefore rendered meaningless.
And as to the main subject of the article by Dodgson, it does provide some interesting information about the genetic makeup of Britain, and it somewhat questions the prevailing myths about Celtic vs. Germanic origins.
In any case, the race-replacers efforts to gaslight people into believing 'Britain has always been multiracial' are based on lies, obviously.

Labels: Anti-White, Britain, English, Race Replacement

At the blog Sarah, Maid of Albion, there is a good post by Mister Fox. It's about the immigration problem in the UK, with Winston Churchill and his terms as Prime Minister being the focus of the piece.
Although Churchill himself, as Mister Fox indicates, seemed aware enough of the growing problem of large numbers of immigrants to Britain, it seemed that those around him did not always support his efforts to deal with the problem. It seems that there were already a number of internationalist/globalist types in government.
Mister Fox notes Churchill's warnings about these kinds of people:
"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?''
I've noticed this over the years. The intellectual classes are often the fount of many damaging ideas and trends. This is true in the matter of politics, and in other areas. When I was doing a study on the growth of what we now call 'New Age' religions and cults, it seemed impossible not to see that the majority of those who were in the vanguard of these things were intellectuals, often from upper-middle class or upper-class origins. In general these were people who had, essentially, too much leisure and too much time on their hands, leading to their search for the new, the exotic, the bizarre, and the outrageous.
Some of you no doubt read the article that's been making the rounds on various blogs, about a study which purports to show that liberals are born, not made. Liberalism is claimed to have a genetic basis. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but as someone over at AmRen commented on that article, liberals are often 'intuitives', according to the Myers-Briggs personality typing system. These people who are categorized as 'intuitives', and they are often people in search of some cause or some utopia.
I would say that many of the 'intellectuals' who championed the cause of the One World idea were of this personality type, just as were many of the people like Englishwomen Annie Besant and later, Alice Bailey who became committed to new-age and leftist beliefs and causes.
I've already quoted, in previous entries, writings from people like H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, who were dedicated to promoting the destruction of nationalism and to a 'world order.'
I don't mean to digress too much here, but all these people were of a common mind on certain things, and they were examples of the kind of restless intellectuals who are destructive to the existing order.
I think, too, that we (myself included) focus much on the politicians, while there are other people, often in the intellectual world or the ''arts'' or in religious circles who are just as much complicit in what is happening to the West as our our elected (or selected) elites. There is a seamlessness among these groups; there is mutual influence and a popular mindset, a group mind if you will, that prevails among these people. This is true now as it was in Churchill's time.
Churchill's colleagues or cabinet ministers seemed to be working to undermine Churchill's efforts to deal with immigration and its attendant problems.
''The type of attitude Churchill had to endure with his colleagues was growing even then. The early Globalist, One-Worlder, Lord Milner, wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd On the Repatriation of Coloured Men which explained why they could do nothing about it: "I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there�" This emasculated attitude grew until Churchill was nearly isolated in his own government.''
Were these men cowardly -- really afraid of 'revenge' or retaliation? If so, why? Britain was still very powerful at that time, still a very confident nation. I wonder of people like Lord Milner were not so much afraid as wanting to be sure their internationalist aims succeeded. Too much ethnocentrism or national feeling among the British people would pose an obstacle to their utopian schemes. It's much the same with our current politicians who claim that we ''can't'' deport illegals because we must cooperate with Mexico and not alienate the 'friendly' government there.
Incidentally, were my readers aware of the fact that there had been racial riots in Cardiff, Wales in the 1870s and again in 1911? I was not aware of that; it is something that is not mentioned in the average history book. Today it would not be mentioned because it might contradict the ''diversity is our strength'' dogma.
The people of the UK have been subjected, in recent years, to the nonsense about how ''Britain has always been multicultural'' just as we in America have been pummeled day and night with the phrase ''this is a nation of immigrants'' and ''we are all immigrants.'' Another mode of attacking the national identity of the people of Britain, specifically English people, is the assertion that the people of that island have been a 'mongrel people' for centuries as wave after wave of immigrants or invaders have come to Britain. The fallacy in this is that most of the people who have settled in Britain over the centuries have been of closely-related ethnic groups; they are all cousins of a sort. That is a far cry from the present ill-assorted collection of unrelated people who have immigrated there in later years.
Churchill saw, apparently, that his country was threatened by uncontrolled immigration, but for a number of reasons, including 'internationalist' traitors in high places, and then his own ill-health, he was never able to do anything to successfully stem the growing problem.
In a later era, Enoch Powell gave his warning:
''As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.''
The people of Britain seemed to be mostly supportive of the speech; it was his fellow politicians and the leftist media who went on the attack.
Mister Fox notes in the blog piece how that in 1955, not long before Churchill left office, the slogan ''Keep England White'' was favored. Fast-forward a little more than a decade, and Enoch Powell is forced out of office and called a 'racist' for saying things that were formerly acceptable. What happened in that short space of time?
One thing that had happened during that time was that the Civil Rights Revolution had taken place in the United States, and it was becoming more and more taboo to hold pro-White views or to do anything which amounted to 'discrimination.' All of this, of course, was not happening by chance; it was all part of an overall plan by the Left, aided by the complicity of the left-dominated media and of course the intellectual ''chattering classes'' on both sides of the Atlantic. By 1968, various victim groups began to agitate for their rights, emulating the successful model of the Civil Rights revolutionaries. This happened all over the Western world, both in Europe and here in the United States.
Will Britain succumb to the one-world multicultists? Many Americans pronounce Britain, as a nation, deceased. On the other hand, a lot of people, even among Americans, say the same about us. Don't count the British out just yet, and the same for our people.
Though many people think America will survive if only because of our rebellious spirit (does it still exist?) and our greater (at this point) rights to free speech and to bear arms, I wonder if we are not, despite those things, at a disadvantage. Why? Because in noticing what people say in real life and on the Internet, I hear so many White Americans talking about how Republicans need to 'reach out' to blacks, and try to 'help' theme attain the American dream, and about how wonderful it is that the GOP is getting more 'inclusive.'
There is, I'm afraid, a kind of treacly sentiment on the part of many Americans toward blacks and other minorities, especially Hispanics. There is a paternalistic desire to help them, and a kind of empathy, a feeling that these people are children that need kind assistance from us. It makes many Americans, even on the right, feel all warm and fuzzy to see 'successful' blacks like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Tom Sowell, Bill Cosby. It makes them feel good that they can admire black people and reassure themselves that they aren't racist, after all.
I don't know if that same sentimentality exists among White British or English people; I rather suspect it doesn't although they do have their share of mad-dog liberals and 'whiggers' just as we do.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I rather think that a critical mass of British or English people will reassert their rights and their primacy of place in their own country.

Labels: Britain, Globalism, History, Mass Immigration, Multicult

Regarding the royal wedding, from the Daily Mail (UK):
'Audrey Jones our producer was looking for the black people in the wedding and we found our Rosa Parks moment, because we were like 'where are the black people'?' she said.
'It was like where's Waldo, where are the black people?' she added.
'We found one little black child in the choir but where's the black people at this wedding?' she continued.''
Lately I've taken to saying indignantly, when viewing any kind of image of a public gathering with 'diversity' conspicuously absent ''But--but where's the diversity?'' It's laughable and yet tragic that this is the main concern of so many people today.
I don't know who 'Sherri Shepherd' is, and I suspect I'm better off not knowing. I have seen snippets in the past from that show, The View, with its panel of cackling harridans. But they are diverse, so I guess that's the important thing.
I've mentioned here before of how, when I was looking at old photos on Shorpy.com, a picture of a grade school class from the Old America was posted, and the first comment was ''Where are the African-Americans and Hispanics?' The poor soul who asked that question so earnestly was evidently ignorant of the fact that back when that picture was taken, Hispanics were hardly omnipresent, even in California or Texas then. Imagine.
And blacks, being a mere 10 or 11 percent of the total population, could not be everywhere either. So many schools, sadly, were diversity-starved. But we can thank our lucky stars, they are working to correct that now, in Britain as well as in this country.
As of now, Britain has a black population apparently in the single digits still, though looking at scenes of London, that's hard to believe. And if you believe the BBC, there once were blacks and 'Saracen Turks' roaming Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest, and then there was the black Guinevere. I wonder what happened? But not to worry; it's all going to be corrected as quickly as possible.
I did not see the Royal Wedding which has been the center of so much hype. I have seen snippets and read about aspects of it on the Internet. I hear that the wedding vows were somewhat altered to politically correct them in accordance with 21st century sensibilities, and that's not surprising. I saw a shot of Elton John and his man/wife there, prominently positioned.
I note, as always, that many ''conservatives'' on the Internet forums are engaging in their usual anti-royal, anti-monarchy diatribes, which I find misguided. To the FReepers: our revolution was not fought to overthrow monarchy as an institution; I think you have it confused with the French Revolution. And our aim was not to shake off alien rule; ''the British'' were our flesh and blood, and the Colonists regarded them as such. The Colonists claimed their own English origins.
So I don't share the loathing for royalty or for social classes that seems to animate many 'conservatives'. Our Founding Fathers did not regard 'democracy' as a desirable form of government, and spoke of it with disdain. They warned of the dangers of democracy, which can easily become mob rule, and can lead to rule by demagogues and tyrants.
Monarchy is as good as the people who are at the top, or as bad. Just as with our system.
Having said that, I have no particular admiration for the Windsors; it seems that they are part of the corrupt world system that is behind the slow and agonizing death of the West. The Queen, sadly, recites the multicultural propaganda these days, and it seems as if the royals care nothing that the English people, those who are the core of what is called Britain, are now second-class citizens in their own country. The English alone have no flag, no parliament of their own. The St. George's flag is now considered 'divisive' if not racist.
Still, despite all that, I can't help but regard the historical England, traditional England, with great fondness. I've felt that way since childhood, and just as with my loyalty to the South and to the best in America, it's the people to whom my fondness and loyalty belong, not a governmental system or the changing faces who 'rule' the country, or even a flag, historic though a flag may be. I somehow find the pageantry and the ceremony and the pomp to be stirring. It seems to awaken something in many people who have ties to that people and that land. It draws us to the past, and to our kin, living and dead, and to come.
We seem to have less and less of that in America as time goes by; not many of us seem to care about the past, and few even know our history. We have few symbols, except for our flag, which is trivialized in many ways.
As our country becomes ever more fractured and factionalized, made unrecognizable by the whirlwind of demographic change, there is little to hold us together, little common heritage and national memory. The monarchy, the institution and all that it represents, represents continuity, and history, extending back in the case of Britain for many centuries.
It's sad that the royals are now becoming little more than characters in soap operas, or tacky celebrities. I read that Prince William says he enjoys 'rap and hip-hop.' That in itself speaks volumes.
Despite all this, I know there is still a core there of the old England or the old Britain if you insist. Personally I think the Welsh and Scots should have full independence, and England be free to go it alone, all of them freed from the EU.
In the meantime, I am glad there is still a vestige of the England that was, even if it's a rather threadbare one. And in parting, I'll ask Sherri Shepherd, whoever she is, ''where are the English?'' That's the pertinent question.

Labels: Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Britain, Christendom, Royalty Tradition

On September 28, 1066, William, Duke of Normandy landed at Pevensey in Sussex; this led eventually to the Norman conquest of England.
What does this have to do with America? It's part of our Western heritage, part of the backstory of America.
The Normans don't get much favorable coverage in our history books; the prevailing attitude is that the Normans were just these aggressors who came, saw, and conquered, and after playing the villains in stories like Robin Hood and Ivanhoe, disappeared into the mists of history. Wrong; they have many descendants in England today, as well as throughout the countries settled by British men and women. The Normans in fact have descendants in America today. Many of us of old-stock ancestry have considerable Norman ancestry.
We hear the term 'Anglo-Saxon' used so frequently that we forget the contribution Normans made to the history and the culture of Britain.
The influence on the English language was considerable; just compare Old English to Middle English.
Some of the Norman words which entered English are parliament, marriage, matrimony, courtesy, chivalry, and many others.
And speaking of invasions of England, Sir George Trevelyan said
It is a commonplace to say that the British are a people of mixed blood�.it may be as well to say, at the outset, that the entrance to our islands of the races who people it today was completed at the time of the Norman conquest. With that event, which itself made less racial than social and cultural change, we come to an end of migratory invasions and forced entry at point of sword. Since Hastings there has been nothing more catastrophic than a slow peaceful infiltration of alien craftsmen and labourers -- Flemings, Huguenots, Irish and others -- with the acquiescence of the existing inhabitants of the island."
I don't know when Sir George Trevelyan wrote those words, but doubtless it was before Britain was inundated with immigrants -- without the active consent of the existing inhabitants of the island.

Labels: Britain, History, Invasion, Western Civilization