English as a universal language

[Cromcruaich]

Thanks that is much clearer now Xest. The argument I presented that English as a language has attached to it associations of shame is more directed at establishing the 'fact' of shame. The question whether or not people should or ought to feel ashamed is a question for ethics. That is a seperate issue which we could seperate from the original point and explore quite productively.

I think the crucial issue is how cultural memories and sentiments remain and why. What function they perform? Certainly Germany and Japan have used their shame productively. In answer to Crom - perhaps if we payed more heed to the wrongs we have committed in the past and nurtured a sentiment of shame we would be less hasty to continue to replicate similar errors today?

This kind of debunks my own argument because if we were so ashamed perhaps we would not be so quick to rush into Iraq to generate still more almighty fuck ups. Obviously I am in a minority.

It's all been a very interesting argument.

Here I dont really know what you mean by the 'fact' of shame, but in anycase no one (give or take one or two) feels shame about Britains imperialist past (infact many people are proud), nor feels ashamed about speaking english, infact, by far the majority probably arnt even aware of British History. Its easy to test this, go out on the street and ask 100 people.

Are you ashamed of English and the English Imperialism of the past?
I can imagine the answers:
'Wot are you man, some kind of batty boy?'
'Ive already got a Credit Card with Britannia.'
'Like whatevah grandad.'
'Am I on TV?'
etc etc


Thats not to devalue what has been a very interesting discussion.

[Sharkith]

I can see your point Crom but in my view society is not composed of people but communications and so there is little to be gained in asking persons.

Even if people remain relatively ignorant cultural memory can still attach shame to its memories. If I was to make this a research project I would look for admissions of shame in for example in various Monarch's speeches to the commonwealth (for example in a relatively unrelated incident didn't the queen actually apologise for Dresden?), parliamentary records such as Hansard and popular novels. My bet would be Victoria respounds with all of the pride of empire but then as you get to our current Queen you will find admissions of wrong doings and a sentiment that comes close to shame. I would start with social communications and study where the code of shame emerges.

It would make a good PhD in fact. Thisis one example of a novel that deals with the subject very well btw. Hereis one much more directly related to the British empire and would give us a good place to start with data.... you will find there is plenty of evidence for what I am talking about.

edit - from Hansardyou can find the following notion of shame attached to the treatment of The Gurkhas:

[quote="Westminster Hall, Wednesday 7 June 2006 [Frank Cook in the Chair"]]

Gurkhas&#8220]

Like I said it is an interesting subject..

[Ovi]

The problem with looking at what people say about passed events is that there is usually an ulterior motive.

Whilst the current Queen may say the words apolgising for passed events, she probably really doesn't mean anything by it, just using words to help the country get it's way in a certain political evironment.

In the case of Dresden, we probably wanted something from Germany or a German organisation. Maybe their support of a vote in the EU or a certain business deal.

Politicians, and the Queen is every bit as much a politician as Tony Blair, generally only say things that help them to get their way.

Also admissions of wrong doing years after an event have little to do with shame in my view. An admission of wrong is generally seen as an admission that it was wrong by today's standards. As I have argued all along for something to be shameful I believe it needs to be wrong by the standards of the day. Although I know we disagree on who much those standards / values have changed.

Let's use the slave trade as an example again. We all know it was wrong, and that we should apologise for those it affected. However at the time it was standard practice, and not to be ashamed of.

[Cromcruaich]

Though it might make an interesting phd, that doesnt change the fact that people intrinsically dont have any or feel any, or even have any knowledge of why they may be expected to feel shame about britains past history.

Communication is part of society indeed. This to me would seem to support communication with people for them to tell you what they feel.

Anyway i'm being pedantic, I understand what you are driving at, I just dont think it particularly exists, may a sentence here and an apology there but
on an individual level really know one feels shame about britains past history, its just not part of the british psyche or british soceity. Again, I think the association is with the days of empire being glory days (this isnt a judgement by me ofc), you would have to search very very hard to find anyone who in anyway alters their behaviour, speech or reactions/actions to people because of any feeling of guilt or shame hung over in the collective conciousness of the english people. It could be an interesting search, and yes there probably is a paper or two in it, but I think you'll find a lot more positives that people associate with it (again i'm not passing judgement on whether thats right or wrong) than negatives.

Keep using british and english interchangeable, dont read anything into that


Oh, regards the quote, saying you should feel ashamed is different from actually feeling it, the majority of people under 30 wont even know who the gurkhas are, and ofcourse in this particular quote, we are feeling ashamed because we arnt supporting the very people who we used to fight on the side of empire, I think this undermines rather than supports your argument.

Looking forward to daoc tonight by the way, were you coming shark?

[Elrandhir]

Woah, damn interessting thread this tbh >.<

[Sharkith]

Crom,

still waiting to hear from the folks to see if their flight is still running so still not sure about tonight...

on the other stuff your approach is a very different view of society and I see no point in arguing because its different. Shame is an emotion in your view and for it to have a social reality it has to be felt by 'the British' in mine it is a code that gets attached to communications. These are two very different concepts and we should not confuse them nor criticise one for not being like the other. Equally I am not so sure you can generlise so quickly to saying the average man in the street feels no shame. There are some who clearly do arguing about the proportions would get us no-where - which is why I hold the view of society that I do. Another thing by establishing the code as a semantic for communication then I would trace its emergence and its specific contours as a semantic that recuirs over time. I think I could build a fairly convincing picture if I had the time. (edit bear in mind I am anti-humanist and so I would want a concept of emotions devoid of the organic content )

As for Ovi's comments - I think if I had the old Hansard records I would find associations of guilt and shame with slavery easily enough - even in the values of the time. The fact that the law changed shows that there must have been some considerable debate - I just cannot put my hands on the records because well I am on annual leave and the library is in work!

Still interesting discussion sorry for all the posts folks I kind of want to get back to work tbh.

Sharkith

[Gandelf]

the majority of people under 30 wont even know who the gurkhas are

Aren't they those little green cucumber thingies that are pickled in jars?

[Cromcruaich]

[quote="Sharkith"]Crom,

still waiting to hear from the folks to see if their flight is still running so still not sure about tonight...

on the other stuff your approach is a very different view of society and I see no point in arguing because its different. Shame is an emotion in your view and for it to have a social reality it has to be felt by 'the British' in mine it is a code that gets attached to communications. These are two very different concepts and we should not confuse them nor criticise one for not being like the other. Equally I am not so sure you can generlise so quickly to saying the average man in the street feels no shame. There are some who clearly do arguing about the proportions would get us no-where - which is why I hold the view of society that I do. Another thing by establishing the code as a semantic for communication then I would trace its emergence and its specific contours as a semantic that recuirs over time. I think I could build a fairly convincing picture if I had the time. (edit bear in mind I am anti-humanist and so I would want a concept of emotions devoid of the organic content )

As for Ovi's comments - I think if I had the old Hansard records I would find associations of guilt and shame with slavery easily enough - even in the values of the time. The fact that the law changed shows that there must have been some considerable debate - I just cannot put my hands on the records because well I am on annual leave and the library is in work! ]


Mm, still not quite with you, 'shame expressed in communications', by that you mean something different than people communicating about the emotion of shame?

I do feel im on pretty safe ground by making the generalisation that the average man on the street feels no shame about about the British Empire. (Again so someone else doesnt get the wrong end of the stick, i'm not passing judgement on whether they should or not). I should probably say average Englishman. Maybe thats what you were getting at, average Britishman (scott, irish, welsh, english) rather than English, in which case, things may not be quite so clear cut.

[Cromcruaich]

[quote="Gandelf"]Aren't they those little green cucumber thingies that are pickled in jars? ]

<3 you gand.

[Gandelf]

At least the British military know how to tie shoe-laces properly. None of this criss-cross nonsense!

I believe the Gurkhas used to infiltrate enemy camps at night and feel if sleeping soldiers' shoe-laces were criss-cross or straight. If they were criss-cross, then they were the enemy and would have their throats slit whilst they lay sleeping.

The Gurkhas were elite!

Edit: In fact, my Grandad fought alongside the Gurkhas in Burma during the war.