tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post545930153933967965..comments2024-03-29T01:33:01.670+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: 'The narcissism of minor differences'James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-9078666529130805982011-01-10T23:38:58.074+00:002011-01-10T23:38:58.074+00:00I am confused by this. Is Mr Thomas being serious?...<i>I am confused by this. Is Mr Thomas being serious?</i><br /><br />I'm afraid so. For instance, I've had a number of discussions with him in the past on the "genetic" point - he's fixated with the idea that "the British" are ethnically homogenous, while of course being conveniently totally distinct from continental Europeans. He claims that the various waves of invaders to these shores (Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, etc) have made very little contribution to the gene pool.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-28770601461723812822011-01-10T23:20:11.506+00:002011-01-10T23:20:11.506+00:00A quick comment on Sean Thomas' statement:
&...A quick comment on Sean Thomas' statement: <br /><br />"Scotland [is] genetically, linguistically and culturally almost identical to England"<br /><br />I am confused by this. Is Mr Thomas being serious?<br /><br />Genetically (almost) identical?<br />Yes, of course, any genetic differences between Scotland and England will be totally negligible, in the same way that my genes are not the same as my other family members. Just as Scots are 99.99999999999999999999 % identical to English, so are we 99.99999999999999999999 % identical to the Irish, Welsh, French, Norwegians, Polish and to every single human being on the planet Earth. We should also note that humans are 98 - 99 % genetically identical to chimpanzees (some humans' behaviour suggests this more than others).<br /><br />What exactly is the point Sean Thomas is trying to make by this statement? Must "genetically identical" countries all be in political and economic union together?<br /><br />Did Mr Thomas mean to say "ethnically identical" ? Could Scotland and England be described as ethnically identical? How do you define "ethnic group"? Is it more cultural than genetic (genetic differences already dismissed as ridiculously negligible and, in any case, irrelevant)?<br /><br />I would say Scots are a different ethnic group to the English, but the extent of my disagreement would depend on the definition of "ethnically identical". If we accept that Scotland is ethnically identical to England, then we must also say that in 2011 the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales are also ethnically identical to England because the dominant language in all those countries is English and they have a culture which is (generally speaking) as similar to English culture as Scottish culture is.<br /><br />Linguistically (almost) identical?<br />Yes English is the dominant language in Scotland but the English spoken in Scotland is frequently diluted with varying degrees of the Scots language (in some circumstances it would be accurate to say that the Scots spoken in Scotland is diluted with English). And Gaelic is patently not identical to English. However, I accept that the dominant language for most purposes is an English very similar to that spoken in England and could be described as "identical" - but the same could be said of Ireland (Republic and NI) and, to a lesser extent, Wales.<br /><br />Culturally (almost) identical?<br />What can one say to this?<br /><br />Perhaps to peoples from outwith (and to some form within) the 'North-West European Archipelago' it does seem as if our differences are "minor" but both the history and present state of these islands suggests otherwise.Gilchristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07170310529035932588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-8362621855416322272011-01-09T00:56:37.024+00:002011-01-09T00:56:37.024+00:00Thanks, Ratzo - I managed to direct Sean to your c...Thanks, Ratzo - I managed to direct Sean to your comment earlier this evening. I must have caught him in a good mood, because he actually conceded he'd been half-wrong!James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-36404200600996943002011-01-08T20:09:21.503+00:002011-01-08T20:09:21.503+00:00It may be nit-pickingly tedious to say so, but Sea...It may be nit-pickingly tedious to say so, but Sean's wrong about the phrase. Its not 'entirely' Freud's because he lifted the basic notion from someone else and renamed it. More importantly, Sean's description of Freud's meaning is well off the mark - Freud saw it as relatively benign phenomenon, and with a more or less positive social function. Freud did indeed mention the difference between the English and the 'Scotch' in this respect but it had nothing whatsoever to do with WW1, or massive nationalistic struggles, which is another fiction of Sean's imagination.<br /><br />Sociologically, the differences between Scotland and England in 1930 were not at all as insignificant as Freud assumed when he wrote it. The relationship of church and politics in Scottish society was scarcely less byzantine than it had been for the previous 50 years, with nothing comparable in English society. While Scottish universities still (just) produced about half of all the graduates in the UK, social conditions, such as the highest infant mortality rate in Europe, were causing 20% of the entire population to emigrate. Etc.<br /><br />On the other hand, it's been said that globalisation (say, since the 1980's) has indeed created created cultural convergence in the UK, but the problem is that its not specific to within the UK - its the well-known homogenisation effect of the turbocapitalist global market (and the accompanying technological revolution associated with satellites, mobile phones, and the internet).ratzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17512152633620132970noreply@blogger.com