In his efforts to unite the kingdoms, King James VI/I may have triggered an ethno-genesis in the form of the Scots and English plantation owners becoming "Brit(t)ish".
In contrast, the Anglo-Norman elite entered Ireland as an already established socio-ethnic group.
This may explain why the problem of sectarianism may be permanent (at least on any conceivable timeline). Of course, outside forces have exacerbated this conflict.
I've heard the phrase that the "Northern Irish are more British than the British". It seems they are the original British.
I did not. I use the debate on so called "British values" to point out the inadequacy of values arguments in understanding national identity. I then discuss the English character. I never claimed that the three other nations in the union see themselves as English either.
It’s not necessary that you do that explicitly. The opening to the piece uses English and British as, essentially, synonyms. Those of us who have been at the end of this all our lives are possibly more aware of that tendency than those writers for whom it is an unquestioned turn of phrase.
It simply does not. The opening comments on British identity and discussions around it before opening up a discussion on English identity. It points out that understanding identity through values is insufficient and looks at understanding character as a better means to approach identity. I specifically counter the idea of a singular British character by acknowledging that there are differences between its constituent nations.
Does Scruton mention the "Brittish Undertakers"?
That was the name that King James VI/I gave to the Ulster Plantation Owners.
Of course, all these men and women would have called themselves English- or Scotchmen, if not a more local identity.
Thus, the identity of "Brit(t)ish" was always a state construction.
Off the top of my head, I cannot recall. He may mention Ireland very fleetingly, I think he condemns the treatment of the Irish.
It would have probably been off topic.
I've been thinking about them more and more.
In his efforts to unite the kingdoms, King James VI/I may have triggered an ethno-genesis in the form of the Scots and English plantation owners becoming "Brit(t)ish".
In contrast, the Anglo-Norman elite entered Ireland as an already established socio-ethnic group.
This may explain why the problem of sectarianism may be permanent (at least on any conceivable timeline). Of course, outside forces have exacerbated this conflict.
I've heard the phrase that the "Northern Irish are more British than the British". It seems they are the original British.
I suppose it could be argued that an ethnogenesis of sorts occurred, albeit one not disassociated from its constituent elements.
I've heard that phrase too. It seems to have a great deal of merit. They are ethnically conscious and proud.
WHY do you conflate “British” and “English”? The three other nations in the union have been pointing out that they’re not English for centuries!
I did not. I use the debate on so called "British values" to point out the inadequacy of values arguments in understanding national identity. I then discuss the English character. I never claimed that the three other nations in the union see themselves as English either.
It’s not necessary that you do that explicitly. The opening to the piece uses English and British as, essentially, synonyms. Those of us who have been at the end of this all our lives are possibly more aware of that tendency than those writers for whom it is an unquestioned turn of phrase.
It simply does not. The opening comments on British identity and discussions around it before opening up a discussion on English identity. It points out that understanding identity through values is insufficient and looks at understanding character as a better means to approach identity. I specifically counter the idea of a singular British character by acknowledging that there are differences between its constituent nations.