So What Happened British Empire?

[Spearthrower]

The "English peoples" you are talking about were the Angles and Saxons.... the "British peoples" predate the Anglification of the southern part of the landmass of the larger British Isle by at least 2000 years.

To be inclusive rather than exclusive (one of the main problems the other nations of the U.K. have with the English) it should be named the British Empire, otherwise it asserts a dominance over the other native peoples that, whether it exists or not, is not very tactful.

 

[sourboy]

But doesn't that work both ways? Ask a Scotsman or Irishman if they want to be called British or Celtic first?

 

[Spearthrower]

No, because England was never the name for Scotland, whereas Britain has been an adjective for practically all the peoples of the isle from time immemorial (including most "Scots")... even when they had other tribal names in use too.

"Britain" is a geographical term - Scotland, England et al are national ones while Celtic is a lingual-racial term. The people of England have as much right to claim Celtic descent too, just because they were displaced and interbred with invading germanic tribes, doesn't deny them the right to their heritage!

 

[Paul Saunders]

"England" is a reference to the regional Anglo peoples that were around for many hundreds of years, and is derived from the Olde English language. "Britain" was a Roman reference to the isle that the English dwelled upon, and due to the Roman influence, became a common alternate description of the English peoples.

Also, when describing people from England, "English" is a socially accepted name. However, if the Civ were to be called "Britain", "British" is a label that could cause feedback, as it has a different modern day meaning. In terms of the UK, it includes N. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales -- with are Celtic in origin, and well... already represented in terms of the Celts Civ.

You've got it the wrong way around. There were no English in Britain when the Romans got here, the English (Angles) arrived after the Romans left.

To clarify, Britain is a geographical term, referring to the British Isles. The largest of these is called Great Britain (meaning the largest island), usually referred to as Britain for short.

In contrast, England is a political term, referring to the land on which the English (originally Angles) lived. Hence Angle-Land, i.e. England.

Prior to the arrival of the Romans and then the Angles, the occupants of Britain were all Celts. They were called Britons, often referred to as the Ancient Britons (to avoid confusion with the modern Brits). The main Celtic language was called Brythonic.

When the Angles arrived, they became British too. In other words, the term British refers to anyone who lives in the British Isles. It's a geographical thing, not a political thing. Just like anyone who lives in any part of America is an American, irrespective of which particular country they live in.

 

[Paul Saunders]

Maybe because the British Empire was a combination of lands, whereas the English existed before and after.

No, the English didn't exist before. Britain came first.

 

[Paul Saunders]

But doesn't that work both ways? Ask a Scotsman or Irishman if they want to be called British or Celtic first?

I've met plenty of Welsh (with Nationalist inclinations) who insist on thinking of themselves as Welsh first, British second. I've also met Welsh people who think of themselves as British first.

I just don't understand why some people indulge in petty rivalries over things which happened a long, long time ago, that had nothing to do with them, and have no relevance to modern day life.

 

[Spearthrower]

I just don't understand why some people indulge in petty rivalries over things which happened a long, long time ago, that had nothing to do with them, and have no relevance to modern day life.

Couldn't agree more!! I think people are just desperate for the "other" to falsely engender a greater sense of belonging.

When we all realise that we are actually the same bloody species on the same lump of rock flying through space, whatever our differences in skin colour, religion, politics, number of sugars we take in our drinks, how many sides of bread we butter (all of these are equally important!) then we might finally get round to fulfilling our potential.

http://www.worldservice.org/

 

[Paul Saunders]

"Britain" is a geographical term - Scotland, England et al are national ones while Celtic is a lingual-racial term. The people of England have as much right to claim Celtic descent too, just because they were displaced and interbred with invading germanic tribes, doesn't deny them the right to their heritage!

It's a common myth that when the Angles arrived, the ancient Britons were "pushed" to the north and west of the island. In practice, most of them stayed where they were and interbred. So the English are not a pure race, they're a mixture of Celts and Angles.

The further north and west you go, the more "pure" the Celtic strain becomes, but hardly anyone in the UK isn't some sort of mixture of Celt, Angle, Saxon and others.

 

[deanjack]

Aren't all of those places English, which is the same thing as British?

Every conversation seems to go back to Americans' ignorance of the world sooner or later. This one just did it sooner.

Eglish isn't the same as British and i wouldn't say the U.S is ignorant but just perhaps not as knowledgable about it as we are in the UK. I can't say anything because i don't know much about American history so i won't comment on it and i think others who don't know the history about the act of union etc shouldn't comment on British history.

 

[deanjack]

The british empire = english empire. The english thought calling their empire the british empire would disguise their supremacy thus making the subject peoples less anti-empire. Really Wales, Scotland, etc are every bit as much conquored subjects as India and the rest were.

Scotland was not conquored, it was a union. In fact in order for the union England had to pay money to Scotland for all the money the lost trying to get an empire.

And to everybody who thinks British=English why don't you go into a Glasgow pub and call them English.

I don't have a problem with English people after all we are in a union with them but i myself dont want to be called English or Scottish for that matter i am British not English.

 

[Paul Saunders]

Couldn't agree more!! I think people are just desperate for the "other" to falsely engender a greater sense of belonging.

I think humans have a natural competitive instinct and like to split into tribes, groups, clubs, gangs and so on. They like to feel that they are member of a group (which of course they consider to be superior), which requires that they have some kind of opposition.

Just as there's an historic rivalry between Wales and England, there are smaller rivalries as well, you can see it on every level. For example Swansea and Cardiff are rivals (often manifested in football hooliganism). Even within Swansea I remember rivalries between different schools when I was a child, and even rival gangs from Penlan and Manselton. This occurs right down to the individual level where you have sibling rivalry within families.

Human nature to be competitive it seems.

When we all realise that we are actually the same bloody species on the same lump of rock flying through space, whatever our differences in skin colour, religion, politics, number of sugars we take in our drinks, how many sides of bread we butter (all of these are equally important!) then we might finally get round to fulfilling our potential.

I totally agree, I just wish the rest of the world would hurry up and realise that.

What we really need is an alien invasion to make us realise that we're actually all the same.

Of course, eventually we'll make peace with the aliens, and then it will be our bit of the galaxy against another bit, and so on until it's the Milky Way vs. Andromeda. Where will it all end?

 

[UnspokenRequest]

I personally would enjoy having the British, that way it would cover us Canadians also (As many of us said we would happy to be represented that way) it would cover Australia, New Zealand..

As a Canadian, I wouldn't like to be represented into the "British Empire". Well, at the very least, cities like Montreal or Quebec shouldn't be included as they were founded by the French.

And it was I think the first indisputable world empire (Opposed to say the Romans, Mongols, Greeks etc) to be build primarily on the economic level. Only near the end was there a little more 'Empire for Empires sake'.

I think it is incorrect.
Spanish wanted gold, silver and spices... Spanish is definitely the first world Empire. Spain had the first Empire on which "the sun never set".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empire_on_which_the_sun_never_sets
And its main focus (as with most empire) was economic: which at the time meant getting precious metals (and other precious goods) back to Spain.
Portugal also had a "world Empire" of its own. In addition to Brazil, the Portuguese Empire had plenty of commercial outposts in Africa, India and South-east Asia during the 15th century... Portuguese were great traders in their own time.

 

[GeneralMatt]

One of the most celebrated moments in Welsh military history
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3419343.stm

However...

Welshmen at Rorke's Drift
http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/myths/myths.htm

Ah, I knew it was something along those lines..

But doesn't that work both ways? Ask a Scotsman or Irishman if they want to be called British or Celtic first?

Actually, in the book "How the Scottish shaped the modern world) it said that the highlander (Which is what most Scottish myth and present day look is from) were more Norman than Celtic..

As a Canadian, I wouldn't like to be represented into the "British Empire". Well, at the very least, cities like Montreal or Quebec shouldn't be included as they were founded by the French.

Though of course they were conquered by the British, and went on to become major places. For the longest time Montreal would have been the most important city in British North America, and with the influx of Brits, especially Scots..

I just think that as we were part of the Empire to, it would be the closest we get, and a lot more representative of our history. One of the main complaints of Canada is that we are too young, so we cannot make it. Where as we were definitely something back then even if we were not "Canada: The country" But "Canada: The Colony or protectorate or whatever."

And I think we have repaid the British pretty well for their services to us by our services in Flanders and the skies over England and the waves of the North Atlantic.

 

[Lacaixa]

There's a complete series on YouTube about the Canadians at Vimy Ridge WWI. Here's the first one ...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iHj88WeLohk

Had the War continued it was planned for Canadian Arthur Currie to replace Haig.

 

[GeneralMatt]

That would have been something..
Though in hindsight, Vimy did not really accomplish much, but it did cement us as the best shock troops there, and give us a sense of national pride..
I saw the documentary on CBC on the thing for the anniversary, quite amazing..

 

[UnspokenRequest]

@GeneralMatt

You have to understand that for about 1/3 to 1/2 of Canadian (Acadians, Quebecers, franco-canadians of other provinces and all the First nations), the British Empire is interpreted as foreign rule and as a sad part of their history. Hence, my reaction.
Canada was forged by TWO European Empires. Before the British empire, there is 150 years of French rule. Add the First nations into this and you can of course be sure that Canada's heritage and identity is at least bi-cultural (French and English), at best multicultural.

I'm from Quebec city, my family has both Scottish and French roots. However, I can tell you that very few people in Quebec city interpret the capture of Quebec city in 1759 by Wolf as a happy day for Canada. To them, it's more like a tragedy. It's the beginning of a foreign rule that lasted until 1867 (for federalists), until the 1960s (for Quebec nationalists and most sovereigntists) and still lasts to this day (for a few hardcore/radical secessionists).

I'm not event talking about the Acadians who were deprived from their lands and deported in Australia, New Orleans or elsewhere in the British Empire in order to provide new lands for the British to colonize... (many people would call this ethnic cleansing...)

I'm not even going into the harsh treatment the British rule imposed on most First nations (most of which, except Iroquois, were allied to the French empire)...

And what about all the new migrants? What about the Chinese (railroad) or Japanese or Italians that came into the early or mid 20th century...

I don't think these Canadians would like to be represented by the British empire... They wouldn't be too proud of it as it is not part of their identity in any way.

As you can see, there are many visions of early Canadian history.

Therefore, I prefer no Canadian representation at all then Canadian representation through the British empire. Let's wait till the end of the 21th century. I tend to think that Canada will be kicking some major a&& by the end of this century (oils revenus, lots of natural ressources, WATER, lots of place for new migrants, the North melting, etc.). If there is something like a Civ28 in those times, Canada may be a part of it.

 

[GeneralMatt]

@GeneralMatt

You have to understand that for about 1/3 to 1/2 of Canadian (Acadians, Quebecers, franco-canadians of other provinces and all the First nations), the British Empire is interpreted as foreign rule and as a sad part of their history. Hence, my reaction.
Canada was forged by TWO European Empires. Before the British empire, there is 150 years of French rule. Add the First nations into this and you can of course be sure that Canada's heritage and identity is at least bi-cultural (French and English), at best multicultural.

Yes, definitely Canada is multicultured, that is part of our heritage eh?

I'm from Quebec city, my family has both Scottish and French roots. However, I can tell you that very few people in Quebec city interpret the capture of Quebec city in 1759 by Wolf as a happy day for Canada. To them, it's more like a tragedy. It's the beginning of a foreign rule that lasted until 1867 (for federalists), until the 1960s (for Quebec nationalists and most sovereigntists) and still lasts to this day (for a few hardcore/radical secessionists).

I'm not event talking about the Acadians who were deprived from their lands and deported in Australia, New Orleans or elsewhere in the British Empire in order to provide new lands for the British to colonize... (many people would call this ethnic cleansing...)

I understand your guys dislike of them, it showed through during the whole crisis during WWI, there was like one regiment of French Canadians, you guys (I am not saying this is right or wrong) didn't want to support France.
But it was not like much changed at the time of the conquest. You kept pretty much everything the same, the Brits were so nice they even ticked off the American merchants as the Brits would not let them have a monopoly in Canada.

I'm not even going into the harsh treatment the British rule imposed on most First nations (most of which, except Iroquois, were allied to the French empire)...

Compared to what the Natives in the US got, these guys had heaven..

And what about all the new migrants? What about the Chinese (railroad) or Japanese or Italians that came into the early or mid 20th century...

I don't think these Canadians would like to be represented by the British empire... They wouldn't be too proud of it as it is not part of their identity in any way.

Again though, they came here, obviously they thought it was worth it eh? I mean who wouldn't want to be part of the Empire that spanned the Earth (A lot as I am finding out).

As you can see, there are many visions of early Canadian history.

Yeah, I knew that my views are not shared a huge amount, with all the political correctness going around, and the misunderstanding of the motives behind the imperialism of the age.

Therefore, I prefer no Canadian representation at all then Canadian representation through the British empire. Let's wait till the end of the 21th century. I tend to think that Canada will be kicking some major a&& by the end of this century (oils revenus, lots of natural ressources, WATER, lots of place for new migrants, the North melting, etc.). If there is something like a Civ28 in those times, Canada may be a part of it.

That is the thing though, why there will probably never be a British Empire in Civ unless modded. All this political correctness going around.

Scots Irish and Welsh don't want to be part of it,
French, Chinese, Italian Canadians don't.
For all I know, the Dark Skinned people in South Africa wouldn't, nor the Indians in India, the Maoris of New Zealand, or all the other nationalities that were the Empire.
I guess that is what you get for having such a wide spread empire, the bigger you are, the more people you tick off, then no matter your merits, the less people want you.. It is sad really.

 

[sveint]

Nationalism overflow error

 

[Willem]

And also English is NOT the same as British.

It is in the minds of everyone but the English. England/Britain, English/British means pretty much the same thing as far as most people in the world are concerned. Both names are interchangeable, just like Holland/The Netherlands.

 

[The Foo]

Or North America and Canadian!