It has been decided by British high command that Harry will not, in fact, be shipping out to Iraq with his troops.
Good move.
Harry should be focusing his attention on places where he can really be of use…such as combating Lord Voldemort.
PAD
It has been decided by British high command that Harry will not, in fact, be shipping out to Iraq with his troops.
Good move.
Harry should be focusing his attention on places where he can really be of use…such as combating Lord Voldemort.
PAD
• 
You understand, something which actually expresses exaggeration, rather than small-scale burrowing.
Yes, it was a simple mistake; it’s late, I’m tired. Now are you going to make a mountain out of my mistake?
No, Craig – not now. Perhaps some other time.
PJP, once again clouding the issue with facts…
“Mail on Sunday – 23rd April 2006”
Prince Harry has threatened to quit the Army if commanders refuse to send him to the front line.
He told senior officers before recently passing out of Sandhurst as a Second Lieutenant: “If I am not allowed to join my unit in a war zone, I will hand in my uniform.”
Harry, 21, and third in line to the throne, has previously talked of his desire to see action with his comrades and the prospect of him walking out on the Army if he is not allowed on to the front line has turned a theoretical problem into a nightmare for the Palace and Ministry of Defence.
The embarrassment for the Army caused by him quitting would be matched by uproar at the notion that while ordinary citizens are allowed to that their main problem is not whether Harry can take the pressure of coming under fire in action – but whether the lives of the men fighting alongside him will be more at risk because he is regarded as a ‘trophy target’ by insurgents.
One experienced commander said: “Second Lt Wales will, as far as is possible, be treated like any other officer but there has to be a line drawn as to whether the men he leads might experience extra danger due to his presence. Decisions will be taken by commanding officers based on an accurate risk assessment at the time.”
In talks between the MoD and Clarence House, it has been suggested that if Harry is deployed to the front line he should be given a safe role, acting as a liaison officer at a military HQ well away from the action.
But sources close to Harry said last night: “He will go bananas if he is given special treatment. He doesn’t want to let the rest of the lads and lasses down by opting out. He was always the first to volunteer on exercises.”
In the final weeks of his Sandhurst training, Harry took part in an exercise in which he acted as commanding officer and sources say that his performance was ‘outstanding’.
The mobility of the Blues and Royals’ light Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles will be a great value in Afghanistan and senior commanders say the Cavalry unit could be sent to Helmand province to support Paras in what is regarded as one of the most dangerous parts of the world.
Harry would command a troop of 11 men who would drive into the front line in their Scimitars.
He would lead his men in searching possibly bøøbÿ-ŧráppëd buildings, hunting down insurgents and providing escorts and combat support to infantry operations.
Harry would be required to command his Scimitar team and remain on the ground, although all troop commanders are expected to do their stint in the operations room, which involves logging events, co-ordinating patrols and directing support where needed.
The Household Cavalry – made up of the Blues and Royals and the Life Guards – is one of the most active units in the British Army and its most senior and oldest regiment. “
On the one hand Harry is an officer, so should indeed know when to “shut up and soldier”.
On t’other hand, he is a 22 year old squaddie who will occasionally follow his testosterone instead of his brain cells. Not everything he says, or is quoted as saying, is automatically going to be a masterpiece of tact and diplomacy.
On the third hand, Jeffrey, going from the above to what you’re posting is, IMHO, not a leap that is supported by logic.
If he’s not allowed to take the risks other soldiers take then what is the point of him remaining in the army? It would effectively be one more poke in the eye for every poor sod who does have kids over there and Harry is apparently not willing to stomach being part of that.
Also, we’re again off to Catch-22 country; a serving officer can not resign in order to avoid assignment to active duties, but can resign through the appropriate channels when not so assigned. Ergo, he could only quit because they’re not sending him…
Incidentally, does anyone have info on how many high-ranking US politicians have offspring on the front lines?
Cheers.
Regarldess of what the regular rules are for officers, Harry is a Royal. Which means, like it or not, he gets special treatment. It’s one of the big reasons why our founders expressly rejected the idea of creating a hereditary government.
Peter J. Poole: I don’t have the material at hand, but I seem to remember reading that one child of one member of the House of Representatives is currently serving in Iraq. I will respect your opinion that Harry’s service would seem meaningless if he isn’t permitted to take the same responsibilities and risks as the other soldiers – BUT I think there may be some value in him demonstrating that, as a junior officer, he is willing to follow orders. He should consider his military service in terms of the interests of his men and the nation, rather than his feelings of personal accomplishment and pride. He is a royal, and has had 22 years to learn what differences that makes. If his superior officers and/or the government of his nation determine that his presence on the battlefield would endanger his men or his country’s interests, he should have the grace to accept the situation. As a serving officer, he should know not to contradict his superior officers’ orders in the press. I am confident a non-Royal officer who criticized his orders in the press would feel some repercussions from his indiscretion.
For some reason last night, with that phrase, I was hooked on it being ants and moles, rather than moles and mountains. As I said, I was tired.
I’m ready for my couple of quick vacations in the next few weeks. 🙂
I am confident a non-Royal officer who criticized his orders in the press would feel some repercussions from his indiscretion.
A non-Royal officer wouldn’t have had to criticize his orders to begin with because he wouldn’t be kept from going over.
The situations are not comparable.
I find this whole thing highly ironic: here we have a young man who may one day lead his country, and he’s not being allowed to serve at the highest capacity. Yet, here in the States, we’re lead by a bunch of twits who did everything they could to avoid military service.
Posted by Bobb Alfred at May 18, 2007 09:39 AM
“Regardless of what the regular rules are for officers, Harry is a Royal. Which means, like it or not, he gets special treatment. It’s one of the big reasons why our founders expressly rejected the idea of creating a hereditary government.”
I’d slightly modify that to “like it or not, want it or not” 🙂
Without presuming to say what reasoning your founders had in mind at the time, I don’t think that avoiding hereditary government has prevented the existence of similar elite categories within your society – Paris Hilton getting her sentence commuted for example?
We do seem to live in a world were rich and famous people do get treated differently. Then again, that’s not exactly news:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread. Anatole France (1844–1924)”
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 10:24 AM
“As a serving officer, he should know not to contradict his superior officers’ orders in the press”
Jeffrey, you seem determined to miss the point here. He’s not – as far as I can see – contradicting or criticising orders, but like all of us he lives in a world where actions have consequences. I’m assuming that he’s smart enough to know that he will draw flak from some members of the press if he does resign but it’s still his choice to do that if he believes in good conscience that he should do that.
Exactly as per anyone else who disagrees vehemently enough with their employers to say, ‘take your job and stick it’.
Cheers.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 18, 2007 10:44 AM
“I find this whole thing highly ironic: here we have a young man who may one day lead his country, “
Nope.
Some part of the problem is that the Royals don’t get to lead the country, in fact they’re constitutionally and traditionally barred from doing anything that even vaguely resembles leading the country, up to and including making any public commentary about how the country is being led.
Which is why Charles gets a kicking from MPs every time he opens his mouth about modern architecture, or the arts, or the pros and cons of organic vs GM farming…
While in theory the leader of our elected majority party gets to be the monarch’s Prime Minister, the monarch doesn’t have the option of saying ‘Sling your hook you tosser’, or of taking a swipe at him with the ceremonial mace while opening Westminster. (Though one might suspect that they may have been sorely tempted to at times…)
The Royal Family is basically there today for ceremony, diplomacy, charity and to rake in lots of tourist and souvenir money, and don’t have a lot of other offers open to them. Which – arguably – is why they so often get shuffled off for a spell in the military.
The House of Lords however, did consist of hereditary peers who were allowed to have a say in how the country is run. New Labour have overseen a partial reform of that, introducing appointed peers to try and make the house more representative. It is again highly debatable how pure the motivation for the reforms was, how – or indeed when – the reforms will be completed and what impact the final version of the Upper House will have on intangibles such as justice and democracy in the UK…
For more, see: //www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=30
Cheers
Peter J. Poole: We just disagree on what the point is. I think military service is fundamentally different from other employment: If you join up, you do what you are told, so long as the order is legal. Threatening to leave if you don’t get the assignment you want is insubordinate – even if the duty you want is hazardous. In the United States, at the entry into WWII General George C. Marshall informed the Commander in Chief that he wanted a combat command. In President Roosevelt’s judgment, it would be for the best if he continued as Army Chief of Staff, a stateside appointment posing no detectable risk, but considerable responsibility: the role he felt was in the national interest. He never went to the press and said what a poopy-head FDR was to second-guess him. I have no doubt there are many comparable stories in the British Army, but don’t have the names at hand. I just don’t see how Cornet Wales placed the national interest ahead of his own ambitions. It may be going too far to suggest he did anything punishable by a military court, but that’s quite different from saying he covered himself in glory here.
PJP, I’m sure it’s no surprise that Ms. Hilton popped into my mind as I had that thought about American royalty. The big exception, of course, is that here it’s celebrity, not birth, that afford special status, and the special treatment afforded them is done sone more or less willingly by an adoring public. Royals get special treatment, as noted, whether they want it or not. They also get it whether they are currently in favor with the public or not.
Mr. Poole: My last post was in response to your previous comments. What you said regarding the status of the royal family and of the House of Lords is completely accurate.
This is completely unrelated to the subject under discussion, but I wonder if you can fathom why so many Americans are so in love with the institution of the British monarchy. 231 years after we fought to be separate, the nostalgia is rather peculiar. It’s the UK’s business to have the head of state it prefers, and I wouldn’t say your system has had worse results than ours – but it seems silly that it is so highly regarded by some of us, and a bit dismissive of our own history.
“PJP, I’m sure it’s no surprise that Ms. Hilton popped into my mind as I had that thought about American royalty. The big exception, of course, is that here it’s celebrity, not birth, that afford special status, and the special treatment afforded them is done sone more or less willingly by an adoring public.”
The word noble literaly means famous, renowned, well known.
“This is completely unrelated to the subject under discussion, but I wonder if you can fathom why so many Americans are so in love with the institution of the British monarchy. 231 years after we fought to be separate, the nostalgia is rather peculiar.”
The institution rejected by the founding fathers is significantly different than the one the UK has now. Right now it seems the royals are more like professional national celebrities. And Americans like celebrities.
Mr. Poole: Your suggestion about American celebrity-worship is probably the best explanation.
Make no mistake – I am not ridiculing the existence of the monarchy in its present form. If the population supports it and sees its value in terms of respect for tradition or promotion of tourism that’s perfectly fine. You are, of course, correct that the authority wielded by the monarch has changed very much since the American Revolution, but I think the primacy of Parliament had been pretty clearly indicated since the execution of Charles I, and irreversible since about the time of Queen Anne. I was just intrigued that there should be such strong feeling for the monarchy of a country not our own.
Micha: Forgive me, my reading skills (like my judgment?) are declining today. You and Mr. Poole are making much more sense than the reverse today.
“The word noble literaly means famous, renowned, well known.”
Which would be relevant (aside from the fact that noble also has other meanings) were we talking about nobles. Since we’re talking about royals, I don’t see how it’s on point.
Some part of the problem is that the Royals don’t get to lead the country
Yeah, that’s true. I think you may at least still agree that the position is still symbolic enough that the spirit of my argument still stands. 🙂
“Which would be relevant (aside from the fact that noble also has other meanings) were we talking about nobles. Since we’re talking about royals, I don’t see how it’s on point.”
It is relevant for the following reasons:
a) You brought up Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton and people like her — celebrities — are an example of a new nobility. I think you understand that, which was why you brought up Paris Hilton in the first place.
b) Royals are nobles, and serve similar functions.
c) The social function of celebrities today has similarities to that of nobles in the past.
“Which would be relevant (aside from the fact that noble also has other meanings) were we talking about nobles. Since we’re talking about royals, I don’t see how it’s on point.”
It is relevant for the following reasons:
a) You brought up Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton and people like her — celebrities — are an example of a new nobility. I think you understand that, which was why you brought up Paris Hilton in the first place. The social function of celebrities today has similarities to that of nobles in the past.
b) Royals are nobles, and serve similar functions.
You are of course right that a serving officer should obey whatever orders he’s given. That’s Harry.
On the other hand I do rather think that Wills, currently in training at Sandhurst to be an army officer, should quit right now and appologise to the guy that missed the cut by one place. The guy that might have been a real officer, but couldn’t be because a royal wanted to play soldiers, always knowing that there was no way he’s ever have been allowed to be one.
Strewth!!
OK, I’ll try responding in dribs and drabs here, otherwise I’ll end up writing a dissertation. Bear with me!
Jeffrey; On Harry, by my interpretation you’re putting a negative interpretation on his actions/motives that I just don’t think is there.
You seem to be seeing a whiney brat where I’m seeing young man in a lose/lose situation. As you say, agree to disagree and move on. (BTW, Mr Poole was my dad, and he’s long dead.. Call me Peter, or PJP!)
Posted by Micha at May 18, 2007 01:44 PM
“a) You brought up Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton and people like her — celebrities — are an example of a new nobility”
Oh boy!
I know what you mean, but I still read what you wrote and have an instinctive desire to gouge my own eyes out. 😛
Paris is indeed an example of that wierd modern creature, “the Celebrity”. We have people today who are famous by virtue of being famous, rather than by any particular ability, talent or achievement they have…
What has the woman ever done? What has Liz Hurley actually done apart from wear ‘that dress’? Why is Simon Cowell a demi-god? Don’t even get me started on Jade Goodie…
“Right now it seems the royals are more like professional national celebrities. “
Agreed, very much so, with a minor exception that they are born and raised with an awareness of that rather than becoming celebrities later in life.
Nobles and ‘the Nobility’ are a different kettle of dormice entirely though, as defined by “of or belonging to or constituting the hereditary aristocracy especially as derived from feudal times; ‘of noble birth’ “
Historically they were the loyal henchmen of the biggest badass in town. Ride in with your army, slaughter the locals, declare yourself king and then hand out titles and parcels of land to your buddies. The (theoretical) difference then was that the en-nobled Earl, Lord, Baron or whatever then took on responsibility for the people who were his yeomen, vassals and serfs.
That’s ‘responsibility’ in the way that a cattle farmer looks after his herds, mind you, but it still translated into looking after a valuable resource. Mix in Magna Carta and about a thousand more years of softening the edges and you ended up with a class of people who were independantly wealthy – so no need to kiss ášš to petrol conglomerates or anyone else – and who were raised from day one with the knowledge that they were responsible for the well being of the realm, of their lands, and of the people who lived and worked in their estates.
They were supposed to embody the whole ‘noblesse oblige’ concept (“Benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank.”)
Curiously, that would also include ‘With great power…” Oh, you know that one! 🙂
I’ll be the first to admit that theory and reality of how ‘the nobility’ have acted do tend to differ considerably on a case by case basis.
Then again, not every president has been a Washington, or a Roosevelt, or a Kennedy. I’m just outlining what the system is supposed to produce…
Posted by Craig J. Ries at May 18, 2007 01:20 PM
“Yeah, that’s true. I think you may at least still agree that the position is still symbolic enough that the spirit of my argument still stands. :)”
So stipulated 😛
I thought it was worth clarifying the position of a Royal, but that was more out of interest than as a rebuke.
Jeffrey:
“why so many Americans are so in love with the institution of the British monarchy”
Not ignoring that one, just requires a big answer, and some people are already falling asleep on this one! I’ll get back to it later!
Cheers.
I think the best move Harry could have made would have been to express his desire to serve but leave out the bit about leaving the army if the Generals didn’t see it his way. I can see that it was a difficult situation, however, and I know he has previously gotten some bad press when he revealed himself to the press (the celebrated appearance as Hitler at a costume party).
People are making such a big deal about Harry Pothead not going into combat. Personally, I think anything that keeps a pot-smoking member of that inbred family away from live ammo is nothing but a good thing.
And Paris Hilton? Jeez, it’s going to be hard enough for her to go 20 days in jail w/o blow, you think she can handle Iraq?
“Micha at May 18, 2007 01:44 PM
are an example of a new nobility”
ROFLOL.
Hey PAD,
Just found out you were leaving FNSM. It’s been my favorite title since it’s debut, I’m sorry you are leaving.
Hey PAD,
Just found out you were leaving FNSM. It’s been my favorite title since it’s debut, I’m sorry you are leaving.
Hey PAD,
Just found out you were leaving FNSM. It’s been my favorite title since it’s debut, I’m sorry you are leaving.
PJP, the review on the issue of nobility is appreciated but unnecessary. Until recently I have been a student of history, and I’m familiar with the permutations of the idea of nobility.
The point behind my brief post was that there are similarties (not identity) between the ideas and functions of nobillity in various time periods and our own celebrity culture. The current British monarchy is an example of a situation when the two phenomena coincide. In a way so does giving rock stars knightships.
Among the similarities we can mention:
Conspicuous consumption
participation in rituals and being before the public eye
having followers/entourages
being rich (although not all nobles are)
having mansions
feuding (sometimes), and competition
and noblesse oblige, today, and also sometimes in the past, in the form of charity work.
Nobles today are less about owning land, and serfs or tenants are less common. Those who own large businesses have employees. I wonder how many the Hilton’s have?
Posted by Micha at May 18, 2007 06:47 PM
“PJP, the review on the issue of nobility is appreciated but unnecessary. Until recently I have been a student of history, and I’m familiar with the permutations of the idea of nobility. “
Unnecessary for you, but possibly of interest for others. I’m an inclusive pontificator 😛
(Hey, I could have rambled on and on about the Spanish nobility and their influence on Mexican culture, but I thought people wouldn’t want to look at that. After all, no one inspects the Spanish exposition..)
Moving – rapidly – on from that;
Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at May 18, 2007 11:33 AM
“This is completely unrelated to the subject under discussion, but I wonder if you can fathom why so many Americans are so in love with the institution of the British monarchy. 231 years after we fought to be separate, the nostalgia is rather peculiar. It’s the UK’s business to have the head of state it prefers, and I wouldn’t say your system has had worse results than ours – but it seems silly that it is so highly regarded by some of us, and a bit dismissive of our own history.”
I can throw out a few ideas, not sure which – if any – have a foundation in truth.
1) There’s a degree of interest simply because it relates to something your nation rejected. A sense of ‘there but for the grace of Washington go we’, perhaps. Maybe a bit like those people who having gone through a seperation just have to know where their ex is and what they’re up to now.
2) Every girl goes through the ‘being a princess’ stage. It’s a big cultural meme, from fairy tales, to Shrek, to movies, to the Princess Diaries… And English royalty is that little bit more accessible than the other European royal families, due to language and general publicity.
3) Royal pomp and ceremony are spectacular, from Beefeaters to Trooping the Colours to the splendid nonsense that is Westminster it’s like Disneyland in some sense, and people like seeing that kind of thing.
4) Maybe, just maybe, and without intending to patronise, the US (and in the same way Australia) are such young countries that there’s almost a need to connect to countries with much greater reserves of history. I know that in the States, people are proud of, and excited by, buildings or events going back a hundred, hundred and fifty, two hundred years. In Britain, you can’t go more than a few miles without seeing a building that goes back to the 12th or 13th century. I live about three miles from the Antonine Wall, built back in Roman times.
5) BTW, I’m not sure how it seems “silly” to have this interest, except in a sense that ‘other peoples hobbies always seem wierd’, and I don’t think it’s automatically dismissive of your own country’s history any more than learning French or Italian is dismissive of your native language…
Cheers.
Peter J. Poole: That’s a pretty convincing set of explanations. By “silly” I suppose I meant that the U.S. was founded in a rejection of British sovereignty; Interest in the mother country (well, for a declining number of us, anyway) is valuable in terms of world-understanding and being adequately educated, but adoration of the form of government we explicitly rejected is more problematic. As you said, the U.S. has a relatively short history to look back on. Interest, and perhaps affection, make great sense. Absolute adoration, however, may be too uncritical – something like the intensely pro-Irish feelings of many Irish-Americans (I am one, so I might get away with this) whose families have been here three or more generations – the country they worship never existed; The real one is far more complicated, but still worthy or interest. I think it is the same with the UK – It’s better to admire the reality than the superficial image.
Yes, there is at least one typo – sorry, but editing after the fact isn’t possible.
(Hey, I could have rambled on and on about the Spanish nobility and their influence on Mexican culture, but I thought people wouldn’t want to look at that. After all, no one inspects the Spanish exposition..)
Owwwwwww…. that hurt…. I think my brain is broken now…
“Peter J Poole at May 19, 2007 04:55 AM “
What are you talking about? Australia is part of the Commonwealth.
Megan: You are correct about Australia being part of the Commonwealth, of course, but Peter J. Poole is right about young countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States – all of which have essentially the same language (the French Canadians can be a separate case if they wish) and a culture somewhat related to the United Kingdom – looking to the old country for traditions and a feeling of continuity. Because the Commonwealth States still have a linkage with the British Monarchy, Australia and the others do not have the same relationship with British culture, but one still somewhat comparable.
It’s nothing to do with being “young countries”. It’s that three of the four countries you listed are constitutional monarchies.
It’s nothing to do with being “young countries”. It’s that three of the four countries you listed are constitutional monarchies.
SOrry for the double post. It’s like my machine has hiccups.
Yes, they certainly are constitutional monarchies; They are not (you can check me on this) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The tendency to look at a different country to find something absent from one’s own (a written history going back 40-50 generations more, perhaps) is still quite present in all of them. I see what you take issue with in PJP’s comments, but I think his posting refers to the whole of British culture being the subject of nostalgia/interest/idealization, rather than the monarchy – which does, indeed, reign (such as it is) over the entire Commonwealth. Australia has the Queen, but not really the same continuity of history. {If the past 40,000 years of Aboriginal history were understood and embraced in the same way as so many see the continuum from Wessex to Windsor, the argument would face in an entirely different direction!}
“Posted by Megan at May 20, 2007 06:02 AM
What are you talking about? Australia is part of the Commonwealth.”
It is indeed.
What are you talking about?
Sorry, but I’m not going to try to answer if I have to guess what your point is… 🙂
(That’s not intended as a put down, honest. More of an invitation to expand on your theme!)
Cheers.
Well, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all still part of the Commonwealth, so the Queen is our Monarch. The USA is a Republic and not part of the Commonwealth.
What doesn’t make sense is the amount of fuss Americans seem to make over the British Royals.
“Jeffrey Frawley at May 20, 2007 09:57 AM”
I do know in what country I live.
I had been going to raise the 40,000-60,000 years of indigenous history in regard top the “young country” swipe for Aus, not to mention Maori history over the Tasman.
Megan, I am tremendously pleased that you know in what country you live. That is very promising. Knowing which countries are in the Commonwealth deserves a gold star, but nobody has contradicted you about that. What do you think about these suggestions?
1. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States are not the same countries.
2. The written history of England goes back much more than a millennium.
3. The written history of the Americas is less than one half of that, of the United States, one quarter, and Canada, even less.
4. The written histories of Australia and New Zealand are shorter than that of the United States.
5. Although the Aborigines and Maoris have lived in their countries for many thousands and many hundreds of years, respectively, the amount of their history preserved and embraced by the majority populations of Australia and New Zealand is relatively small.
6. Large parts of the populations of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand consider their cultures continuations or offshoots of English history, rather than Amerindian, Polynesian or Micronesian.
Therefor, it is quite ordinary for Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders to view England and the United Kingdom as a whole with admiration and nostalgia. Although there were long-lived civilizations in their native lands, Britain holds a strong hold on their imaginations and tastes.
You’ve just written off all oral historical traditions. Interestingly Ireland’s historical traditions etc were oral traditions, as were some of the Scandinavian ones.
I never said that we were all one country. The Queen is Queen of Canada, of the UK, of New Zealand, of Australia. We are “family” of nations related throught the Commonwealth and our shared backgrounds. I can’t explain it any better than that. It’s not nostaglia. I’m guessing that you don’t come form one of the Commonwealth member countries. At least our head of state (the Governor General) is not a political position.
Jeffry and Megan, you seem to be talking across each other and then react with hostility about it.
Megan correctly says that Australia, New Zeeland and Canada are members of the Commonwealth. Which means that the Queen of the UK is also their queen. Which means that they are perfectly entitled to be as obsessive about the royal family as the Britons themselves, whereas the Americans don’t have that excuse (that’s the price of rebellion).
However, why should the Australians, who are quite distant from the UK, and are pretty much independent and have their own culture by now, choose to care about the royal family, or for that matter any other aspect of British culture?
Jeffery answers correctly that Australia, like America, is basically a relatively recent cultural offshoot of the culture of the British Islands (rather than the indigenuous culture of the territories they occupy), and therefore both feel an obvious connection to the country in which that culture originated, (while still maintaining their own culture, as well as a connection to the previous cultures that inhabited their territories).
And that’s it.
“You’ve just written off all oral historical traditions. Interestingly Ireland’s historical traditions etc were oral traditions, as were some of the Scandinavian ones.”
Scholars tend to distinguish between history, proto-history and pre-history, or something like that. The reason is probably because history is studied by reading documents mostly, while the other kinds are the work of anthropologists and archeologists (this is a bit of an oversimplification, so feel free to correct). Historians tend to focus on civilizations that can write, and oral histories only appear on their radars when they are written down, unless they choose to use interdiciplinary methodology.
Ireland, in any case, I believe has written history going back to the early middle ages, There was a brief period of time where the Irish were the sophisticated culture that exported missionaries to Britain and Europe. Some of the oral history of the Irish may have bben written down at that time, or maybe later. I don’t know, you’ll have to look it up. if it matters.
“Micha at May 20, 2007 08:43 PM “
Because it is the current will of the Australian People passed by referendum?
No, I don’t write off oral tradition, but I discount the significance it has to the majority populations of the countries we are discussing. As an example, the Powhatan Indians must have lived right where I am sitting for many years before the colonists. Whatever they did – noble or not, peaceful or not – has very little to do with the sociopolitical, religious or cultural aspects of my culture and identity. It isn’t right or wrong: It’s just a matter of the fact that people from a different place with different belief systems and more lethal weaponry supplanted what came before and marginalized it. What interest does the average city dwelling Australian have in the tens of millennia of Aboriginal culture? With few exceptions, whatever interest the largely Anglo- and Hiberno-Australians have in Aboriginal culture is academic rather than self-defining. Maori culture must play a larger, but not controlling, part in New Zealander culture, as the suppression of the native population was less total than in Australia, but the language, religion and culture are strongly anglophile. Canada looks to England and France before it looks to the native population for culture – just as in the U.S.
“Because it is the current will of the Australian People passed by referendum?”
It’s like Jeoprady, answering in the form of a question.
I assume the will of the Australian people to be part of the commonwealth, as well as maintain other connection to English culture, is the result of a cultural connection they feel toward Britain.
Micha,
We have a system of government (Constitutional monarchy & Parliamentary democracy) that’s working. If it ain’t broke, why muck around it?
Megan, with whom are you arguing? No one has suggested that the Australian system of governance is “broke” or in need of “mucking around it.”
“We have a system of government (Constitutional monarchy & Parliamentary democracy) that’s working. If it ain’t broke, why muck around it?”
I assume that the cultural connection between Australia and Britain is not only the result of the Australians not wanting to change a functioning system of government, especially considering that the monarach part of the system is more of a figurehead at this stage.
Or maybe this reluctance itself is also an aspect of British culture?
I don’t really understand why this discussion is going on for this long. Do you feel that I, or somebody else, is overstating or understanting the relationship between Australia and Britain?
I had been going to raise the 40,000-60,000 years of indigenous history in regard top the “young country” swipe for Aus, not to mention Maori history over the Tasman.
Yeah but Megan, by that rationale, there really aren’t very many young countries anywhere and haven’t been since homo erectus or the already human survivors of the Toba catastrophe theory (depending on which theory is correct) migrated out of Africa those many years ago.
Y’know, if we are getting this contentious this early it’s gonna be fun election year in 2008!
I’m not hostile toward Megan, because she has not yet disagreed with anything I said – but she does seem to have a strong disagreement with something no one has said. I just hope no one realizes the error of his ways, and stops doing it, already!