English but not British?

The following discussion(sic) is an extract from the Cornwall24 Forum of the above title. This represents both an example of the form of TROLLING regularly visited upon 'the Cornish' posters and well illustrates, among other things, one of the complementary effects of the psychological genocide of the Cornish people through the externally driven processes of Anglification. Processes that are simultaneously linked to a British=English synonymy and a continuing inertia of English Imperialism.

The purpose in posting the extract here is to allow TGG to include, retrospectively, additional off-thread comment.   This is in order to expand upon the reasoning behind some of the postings and to facilitate further analysis of the responses, without making the thread any longer than was necessary.

Please use the above title as a link to visit the full open on-line discussion and browse the rest of the Cornwall24 message boards. Use Mouse RightClick to open all links in a 'new tab' to retain existing viewed page

Gravydave - Posted:  30.08.2008, 21:15

Quote=P_Trembath
Are you saying that it is only the Cornish who get irritated when the Cornish are called English?

Quote=Fulub le Breton
Actual political English nationalism, as evidenced by the lack of votes for Eng nat parties such as the English Democrats, has little support among the English

TGG - Posted:  31.08.2008, 12:28

But, GD, is it clear to you? If you say yes, I suspect that it will not be for the right reasons. The clue is 'Hegemony', which you will find spelt out, quite clearly, here!

It has taken a selfishly perceived awarenes that the Celtic Fringe is, only in recent years, now getting something previously denied to them by the English Hegemony, which has stirred 'the Lion' from its narrow imperialistic self-engrandisement and, hopefully, shattered the Island of England dream.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

It should be remembered that the C24 thread, within which this exchange was taking place, was initiated because of a view expressed elsewhere (another thread?), and which indicated that the person had considered himself to be "English, but not British!". The thread proceeds, therefore, about that being an impossibility. Consequently, Gravydave's opinion, "some cornish seem to have a problem understanding that the English are not at all hung up on identity", was immediately flawed, because it is obvious that some do have a problem. The existence of a burgeoning English Nationalism proves this. However, that is a recent phenomenon and his point would only have been true prior to this , for reasons that he refuses to acknowledge, but which I felt should be set out for his edification.

He then offers a quote from, Fulub le Breton, another poster to the discussion, that suggests that the English, generally, have little interest in English Nationalism. He then, incorrectly, confuses this with having no 'problem/hang' up with identity. I offer some reasons why this is, generally true at the moment.

If he were objective enough, he might have seen some similarities between 'nationalism and identity' within our Cornish Duchy. He might have done some on-line searches on the subject of this thread (and educated himself), based on comments and pointers already provided. I would certainly advise him to check out, for example, Paul Kingsnorth.

Gravydave - Posted:  31.08.2008, 13:34

TGG

if you are making reference to the report it was taken to bits by many on the radio 5 and shown just what a load nonsense it was. Many People who live up north do very well and not all who live in the southeast are really that well off. it is a fact.

"Celtic Fringe" what do you mean by that?

TGG - Posted:  31.08.2008, 14:48

GD, not a reference to the report, but it does not surprise me that a radio phone-in should have differing opinions on anything. It only proves that people, quite rightly, have opinons.

This is a topic about an English and/or British identity and I simply point out why the English, up until now, have had no crisis of identity, whereas the Celtic Fringe (that bit of the Island of England that is properly NOT ENGLAND!) have been driven to such a crisis by the existence of an English Hegemony - the reason why Peter Davidson now points out that an English parliament will not work within a UK context. It has been that for the past 300 years.

It is the existence of the English Hegemony, with its Island of England, that has made the concept of 'British' a mythical, if not negatively ambiguous, greater English identity.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

As an obvious TROLL, it is clear that Gravydave is not comprehending what has been said, or deliberately not investigating the links provided as part of the response to him and which, clearly, sets out its specific relevance (my use of the word "Hegemony" as the pointer!) to what is being discussed here. If I had been refering to 'the report', then I would have, unambiguously, pointed to it. Consequently, his reference to radio 5, the north, and the southeast have absolutely no relevance to the discussion and, in unqualified isolation, is simply gobbledygook.

Similarly, considering the period of time that he has been TROLLING the Cornwall24 Message Boards, he ought to have been capable of understanding a common phrase like "Celtic Fringe". Failing that, it could be deduced by either a simple process of elimination, a search of the Cornwall24 database, or, an on-line search. It was, in essence, a completely pointless reply.

Gravydave - Posted:  31.08.2008, 17:49

TGG

You aren't making much of a point, but you could try this,

How about joining the Army no not an English Army but a British Army made of Scots, welsh, Irish and English people all under one title THE BRITISH ARMY and when it comes to THE world cup you have a Team from England they are all British and a Team from Scotland they are also British are they not? I am not too sure you understand about the concept of being 'British' I feel you wish to make it difficult to understand.

TGG - Posted:  31.08.2008, 20:27

GD, Your level of subjectivity, in stating the obvious, is truly mind-boggling. Perhaps an exercise in analysing spontaneous comments might tax your mind a little, since this truly reflects people's perceptions of the world that they live in.

Do you by any chance watch any of the TV series "Dad's Army" and listen to the words of the programme's theme song?

Perhaps you are a James Bond fan and have noted some comments that are relevant to this topic?

Why is it not "the British" World Cup Football team? What other multi-national Imperial State has more than one bite at the cherry?

Why is it Elizabeth II ?

BTW Your subjectivity proves only that you have a closed mind. There is enough evidence out there to prove that my observations are correct.

To show that it has been around for a long time, try reading and comprehending these few pages

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

It is difficult to respond to someone that perceives the stated reasons for the failure of the alleged 'British' State as "not making much of a point" and who then continues by simply stating the obvious de facto situation. It is as if the real political events around him, and the spontaneous nature of identity and conversation are unseen and unheard, or simply in denial for the benefit of TROLLING or (by the use of such dismissive expressions), FLAMING! I hesitate in assigning the epithet 'ignorant' to someone who deliberately, and consistently, sets out to engage with other posters in a public forum, but there is no doubt about where he would be positioned in the Debating Chamber here!

The examples offered, therefore, to rebut his rather pathetic response, all overtly illustrate some of 'the evidence' at a spontaneous level, there not being enough space to list them all. Neither is it necessary to do so, because they are subliminally 'in your face' on a daily basis and a matter of written historical record, whether in text, film or any other medium. The historical text linked to, at the end of my above on-thread response, represents a modern perception (written in 2002) showing how the British=English synonymy has been around since, at least, the mid-16th century - the period immediately preceding the Union of Crowns, when James VI of Scotland, also became James I of England and 'self-styled' king of Great Britain.

Gravydave - Posted:  31.08.2008, 22:30

Quote=TGG
Why is it not "the British" World Cup Football team?

TGG - Posted:  01.09.2008, 10:08

??? Have a nice day!

TGG - Posted:  01.09.2008, 15:02

GD, I have rethought the hopelessness of this excursion into the dreamtime and feel that it is only fair to let you know that 'what I wanted' is clearly set out here. All else that follows was simply to give some immediate examples of what I am talking about.

The problem that I have, apparently, seems to be your unwillingness to explore, and respond, to a broader and more objective picture of the political issues of a flawed United Kingdom, writ large by the existence of a general Celtic Fringe Nationalism.

Any spontaneous examples that I had presented are very clearly explained, in principle at least, by a read of the historical text provided by the link in my earlier posting. You were close with your "hidden message" comment except that they were not hidden, but overt examples of the everyday spontaneous inertia of English Imperialism with its British=English synonymy.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

My previous response reflected a decision to 'end the suffering'. I then considered that there was some mileage in persisting, in order to continue to make my point, even though he seemed totally oblivious, with no desire to question anything that did not match his radar, or agenda. Although a British Football team did seem to register, it was not enough to motivate him to seriously question anything that I had said, or attempt to give an answer to the questions that I had specifically posed for him to respond to.

Had he probed, he would have had all the unknowns clarified for him. I list them here, to illustrate some of the subliminal messages that occur - not necessarily because of any malicious intent, but purely as a spontaneuos expression of an English sense of place as driven by a self-perpetuating inertia of English Imperialism:

• I have no problem at all with Dad's Army (one of my favourites) but the introduction gives a visual representation of the Union Flag (taunting Hitler), over which the lyrics of the modern theme song provides the subliminal British=English synonymy message. I have added an audiovisual youtube link of this (below) in a later response.
• The best example, from a James Bond film that comes to mind is in "Goldeneye", where British agent 006 (Sean Bean) enquires of British agent 007, "For England, James?".
• Compared to other World Cup participating States, Britain is the only one to field a team from each of the constituent Home Nations - Cornwall, of course, being a suppressed nation! Some interesting on-line discussion over the proposal for a GB team for 2012. Not unlike the debate, which led to Cornwall representing the UK at Rugby in the 1908 Olympics
• The current Sovereign of the United Kingdom is the First Queen Elizabeth, so why is she named as Elizabeth II? An indicator here, of a Scottish challenge, implies that 'England Rules' in the regnal numbering of Monarchs! The James I precedent, seems to have been conveniently ignored, or was it adopted? Also discussed in the Palace of Westminster. What is the betting that there will never be another James, but Charles and Henry are distinct possibilities?
• There is no reason to add anything regarding my final example, because it is very clearly spelt out within the text that has been linked to. However, an indication that it had been read would have certainly exceeded anyone's expectations.

Two further examples, of all that I have been presenting so far, might just clinch it for the open-minded?

• The infamous John of Gaunt speech in Shakespeare's Richard II re-affirming "This Sceptred Isle" - "This England":
  
  

  This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
  This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
  This other Eden - demi-paradise -
  This fortress built by nature for herself
  Against infection and the hand of war,
  This happy breed of men, this little world,
  This precious stone set in the silver sea,
  Which serves it in the office of a wall,
  Or as a moat defensive to a house
  Against the envy of less happier lands;
  This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

  
  
  
• H J Paton, in his "The Claim of Scotland" (1968), where he provides, on page 20, this poem extracted from the Punch magazine:
  
  

  "Under Mr. de Valera
  Ireland changed its name to Eire.
  Britain strictly keeps its name,
  It's called England just the same."

• why 'the English' would have had no problem with identity, and
• also pointed out why that idyllic state has been nullified for them, following devolution, and
• the consequential benefits now being derived from that, by the participating parts of the Celtic Fringe,
• giving rise to a burgeoning English nationalism of discontent

Gravydave - Posted:  02.09.2008, 00:13

Quote=TGG
The problem that I have, apparently, seems to be your unwillingness to explore, and respond, to a broader and more objective picture of the political issues of a flawed United Kingdom, writ large by the existence of a general Celtic Fringe Nationalism.

TGG - Posted:  02.09.2008, 12:26

GD, if, in your opinion, I "talk rubbish", then the least that you could do is to spell out what is rubbish about it. I have made some pretty specific statements for you to comment upon. If it is all rubbish, then stand by your convictions and please enlighten us all rather than waffle and bluster. I am more than willing to give clarification about anything that you find difficult to understand.

I assume the key phrase in this is "the same refashion of history" alluding to the particular emphasis applied to items intended to 'entertain' or 'inform'. You could, in fact, be talking about the biased Imperial English Education Curriculum (IEEC), which, unlike a commercial film, is imposed upon a captive audience, devoid of balance.

You use the phrase "English are demonised"" yet fail to comprehend that it is an event related from a non-English perspective and the English are (believe it or not!) 'the enemy', whereas in the (IEEC) they are glorified to the point of sanitisation and we have the driver of an English Hegemony with its British=English synonymy.

GD, I am specific but you are in denial!

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

So the attempt at FLAMING continues, with an unsubstantiated dismissal of my post as "rubbish" together with an entirely fanciful, and unproven, suggestion that he is joined by most other readers. He then attempts to counter my examples - which, incidentally, he has not shown any indication of understanding! - by seeking to draw some imagined comparison to the Films "Braveheart" and "The Patriot". There are not many films that get past the artistic re-modelling for the sake of sensationalism and/or box-office bottomline returns. My examples are all, based on real-life constitutional misrepresentation. This has been supported by evidence, deriving not from artistic licence, but from spontaneous thought and actions, of ordinary people and by showing that this has been based on the existence of an English Hegemony as a matter of historical fact.

His closing comment "So I ask just be precise, but fear you just want to be complicated for a reason!" - without any explanation of what he finds complicated about it, why it is, apparently difficult to comprehend, what he considers my reasons for making such comments, or pertinent questions, which seek clarification - is also particularly bizarre, coming as it does from someone that chooses to engage in what one assumes to be 'an intelligent discussion'. Consequently he completely lacks credibility. I tell it as it is from my perspective. If he chooses to engage, then it is essential that he is (or attempts to be) equal to the task, or asks pertinent questions. It is not that I make it complicated, it is simply that there is no other way of saying it, and, there is only one way of learning! Walk the walk so that you can talk the talk!

Gravydave - Posted:  02.09.2008, 20:52

Quote=TGG
unlike a commercial film, is imposed upon a captive audience, devoid of balance.

Quote=TGG
I "talk rubbish", then the least that you could do is to spell out what is rubbish about it.

TGG - Posted:  03.09.2008, 12:02

It might be a bit unfair to ask you to explain how my examples are perceived (by you) to be in any way the same, or similar, to your stated examples - particularly as you have only partially quoted (and. consequently, misrepresent) what I have said. I can only say that there is no comparison at all.

Since you have never understood my point regarding "Dad's Army", and the other examples given, (and accuse me of talking rubbish!), how can you even begin to make such a comparison? I have already given you enough information, in fact, for you to be able to properly discuss the issues and points I raise.

GD, I have no problem at all with England (or the English people), and not sure why you should think that I have? You seem intent on resorting to playground type comment and I feel that I must point out that I do communicate in English and assume that those reading it have a comparable understanding of it. To think otherwise would be very patronising indeed but you do seem to have a particular problem with it. If you eventually understand what I am talking about, then you will also have the answer to your question.

???Please explain [your comment "I write the above for YOUR primary audience" ]?

No! [I have no problem with the phrase Black British!] Why are you changing the topic, rather than responding to my points?

Are you now redefining "rubbish" as something 'not understood' and arrogantly presuming that people generally are not capable of understanding what I have written above in my responses to yourself? We are talking about something very complex and within that complexity there are certain terms that are easy to comprehend through natural knowledge or the self-motivation to look in a dictionary and learn, or, better still, to ask the pertinent questions and learn. If that is beyond you, then please do not presume that that inability also exists in others.

I feel that I must add that this discussion has had nothing to do with Cornwall. It has all to do with explaining your stated perception about the English not having a problem with identity and the reasons why this has, up to now, at least, been the case.

A timely clue:

"The Duchy owns holiday cottages on the Isles of Scilly. I do not know why the future King of England is messing about with holiday lets," said Mr Davis.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

His latest posting includes two quotes from my previous posting. However, in both instances, he has not quoted them in the correct context. The first item quoted is simply stating a fact that I expressed about a national curriculum, and has nothing to do with the comment, or comparison, that he attributes to it. In fact, none of his first paragraph has any particular relevance to either the quoted item, or the thread itself.

The second item quoted should have began with the phrase 'if, in your opinion,'. I do not subscribe to his rather narrow view that I talk rubbish, nor has he explained what he means by that. His response to that quoted item has nothing to do with 'rubbish' but more about how I should bend to meet his own inadequacies, plus his unproven support of the majority.

At this point he refers again to a mysteriously undefined "intended audience", which, earlier, was "YOUR primary audience". I originally responded to a point made by him. Therefore, he is my primary audience. We were on a public forum so everyone else is secondary to our discussion. Consequently, he is my intended audience. I am not aware that I am saying anything that I have not said numerous times before on the Cornwall24 message boards, so why does he consider that I am speaking to someone other than himself?

It is clear from his first paragraph that he has completely lost the plot, and is forced to end the paragraph with yet another absurd statement plus his, now predictable, presumed 'majority support', and another attempt to divert the discussion, "England is so much an issue for you but most us would like from you to just come out and tell us in English what you COULD ALTER! (remember you needed to have the support of the people)". Since I am only presenting what I see as provable statements of fact, from many sources, as stated above, why do I need support? This exchange has nothing to do with altering anything. It is about acquainting Gravydave with an alternative view of his world. What he, as my primary audience, does with it is entirely up to him. If I make it any more profound than that, there is every chance that he would not understand it anyway.

Gravydave - Posted:  03.09.2008, 16:37

Don't you get it TGG? the Clue is in what I typed

And the above point that is an interpretation

Am I mixing it up for u my son?

Gravydave - Posted:  03.09.2008, 16:51

Will he be the King of ENGLAND?

Elizabeth II is QUEEN of the United Kingdom and there has not been a Queen of England since 1603 so how would he be KING. Should we be asking Mr Davis to clear this up or is this just an interpretation by Mr Davis!

I will answer or reply to your other questions L8R TGG.

TGG - Posted:  03.09.2008, 17:02

Insofar as you are coming back with comment that does not match, I suppose you are "mixing it up"! At least, I know what I am talking about.

What you present as 'a clue' is totally unrelated rubbish. I did edit and add some clues of my own for you on the immediately previous posting, but you probably would not have seen them, or had the wit to understand them anyway.

As in the past you seem determined not to discuss, so we must leave it there and hope that others have been suitably informed, or entertained.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

Since he seems determined not to reason, or analyse, my comment implying that his clue was way off the mark, it must be left to others to make up their own mind, assisted by my previous "Additional Comments". His subsequent posting indicates some semblance of reasoning, but in spite all that has been said previously he has, again, completely missed the point of why I had incuded the 'king of England' reference. It is simply another example (another clue!) of spontaneous conversation and British=English synonymy. It was yet another entirely pointless, but revealing, response.

Gravydave - Posted:  03.09.2008, 17:21

Someone take a look at this TGG's posts and website and come back and tell me if it is difficult to understand and how or rather how her website could be more user-friendly in its design, I could well be wrong!

Gravydave - Posted:  03.09.2008, 18:29

TGG I have just taken a look back over this thread and see my points have been very clear but since you commented on my post you seem have made things difficult to understand. I know what I am on about but you come a long and make no real point and just well go on about well nothing I just looked back and see you have a hard time coming out and saying it in simple English and don't give me it is very complicated cos it ain't .

Go have yourself a nice day no need to reply.

TGG - Posted:  04.09.2008, 12:37

GD, It is good to see that you have checked your own gobbledygook and given yourself 10 out of 10 - but, self-recognition is no praise! If you consider that I have made things more difficult for you to understand, perhaps that might, just might, be an indicator that I had upped the intellectual scope of what was being discussed.

Whilst I have no intention of engaging any further with an obvious TROLL, I shall dissect our little exchange and place it on the TGG website, citing you as a prime example of the inherent dangers of ignoring the processes of Cornish Genocide.

ADDITIONAL OFF-THREAD COMMENT:

These comments will, again, address two responses.

His first response was a desperate call for support from his 'presumed majority' of like-minded readers to audit, not only our 'exchange' but also the TGG website. Why, the TGG website? Why, also, should he lack so much confidence in his own ability (he chose to engage) as to seek the opinion of others. Perhaps his objective is to keep the thread going? If it behaves like a TROLL then it probably is a TROLL!

His follow-up response leads us to believe that all is OK, because he has checked his own posts and found them to be very clear indeed. It seems that I, according to Gravydave, have been the problem:

"but since you commented on my post you seem have made things difficult to understand. I know what I am on about but you come a long and make no real point and just well go on about well nothing I just looked back and see you have a hard time coming out and saying it in simple English and don't give me it is very complicated cos it ain't."

Well, the good news is, that I have also looked back at my previous postings and see that my points are also very clear. I have, however, attempted to make things even clearer by retrospectively incuding some additional "Off-Thread Comment".

Having seen the postings subsequent to this original posting I am intrigued as to why THE TROLL should suddenly be motivated to say,without any qualification, "so why not come out and say your point clearly as you have done in your reply to myself? (funny that] "? All replies have been to him, why pick out one from another? Does he have an invisible friend, who has been writing his posts? That is funny! Considering the difficulty that he has with this particular topic, does he seriously think that I would waste any more time with him on the principal issue facing the Cornish people. Let him persevere and seek the information on this website.

I would like to extend a sincere thanks to Mike for his posting below. Mur ras dhys. Pur guf os-ta!

Gravydave - Posted:  05.09.2008, 00:41

NO SIR I don't talk gobbledygook and anyone reading my posts can see that, so why not come out and say your point clearly as you have done in your reply to myself? (funny that]

A Cornish Genocide? I can't find anything on the UN website about a Cornish Genocide, can you tell us TGG and just do it plain English please, what xxxxxxxx ur on about. I note not many come to your defence regarding my straight forward criticisms of your very boring and difficult to work tone.

Mike - Posted:  05.09.2008, 00:47

Most people, Gravydave, don't even read your posts or feed your trollism. You've made a complete inadequate ass of yourself from the day you started posting on here.