British culture

Post Reply New Topic

Actually Neflix has changed the viewing landscape hasn't it. Youtube also has substituted. I virtually get all my news from foreign news sites. Times have certainly changed.

On a positive note there has been some occasional good british stuff. Gritty detective dramas. Really enjoyed Luther and Peaky Blinders

Except for local news, my favorite news site is the Guardian which at least used to be British.

Speaking of Netflix, over the last year or so I have watched shows from Germany, Korea, Spain, Mexico, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, France, Poland, the UK, and even the US.

I love British tv, the gardening shows, comedies, and all those great classic mysteries.I watch Acorn and Britbox more than American telly.

Yes. Being an island is a triple edged sword. The sea can be a barrier to invasion, or a highway for invasion. And the invasions can go either way- towards you, or away from you. The history of Britain alternates between all three: isolation, inward invasions, and outwards invasions.

Britain was invaded by the Celts, then by the Romans, then by the Angles-Saxons-and-Jutes, then by the Vikings (who conquered big slice called the "Danelaw"), and then by the Normans. Then there was a period of isolation. Then Spain tried to invade them with the Armada, but failed. Then invasions went outward, and Britain ended up ruling one fourth of the dry land on the planet at the height of their empire around 1900.

Anyone is qualified to talk about any country, if they have sufficient knowledge and keep to facts, which can be done by accessing official, relevant sources of British culture (your own research is required here). Don't buy into the myth that you cannot talk about someone's identity if you aren't that identity. It's just not true for Britain in today's political climate, in the north of England, at least.

You don't need to be apologetic if you have done your research. The whole point of open discussion is to win an argument based on owning a debate with verbal reasoning & conversational power struggle (this is what happens in a British context) - saving face isn't even really a thing in a northern British conversation - so if a person views this kind of discussion from a very leftist American, political paradigm, then they will see it as brutally honest. But being an Autistic British person is a very brutally honest experience.

In regards to the content of your post - you are exactly right. British folk basically spear-headed the black rights movement from an early stage, though the United States were very quick to pick up on that momentum.

Slavery was banned in 1833, in the United Kingdom, and Britain was the first nation to free its black slaves, setting an example for the rest of the world. The transatlantic slave trade began in the 15th century, and was essentially a wealth transfer of the labour force and the costly production of black folk labour, to the Western European colonial powers. The Western European powers took the wealth of black folk, made it their own and used that wealth to control their own empire, where they supported black people, but this was with black people in a supporting role, with the power balance strongly in favour of the British Empire. So from a black perspective, this was humiliating, yet the alternative was serving a different empire, and Britain has generally served as the best empire for black folk, historically.

Source: https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/civil-rights-movement/history-of-civil-rights-in-the-uk/

The United States of America followed in 1868 with the 14th amendment which gave black people equality protection under law.

On a parallel level, in Britain, key black events began in 1919, with black uprisings in the north of England & which escalated into the 1980's.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/black-british-social-and-political-history-in-the-20th-century/

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement

This isn't really my domain, although I am working towards learning more about black history. But everything above I have told you is accurate, according to the sources provied.

I watch two British podcasters (one called "History debunked" and the other a younger fellow calls himself "Survive the jive") who both follow a "nativist" strain of British protectionism which takes the most conservative views on British identity.

I am impressed they both try and use journal articles in their podcasts and they both seem very educated. I am probably capable of having a civil discourse with either if I met them over a cup of Early gray.

I actually don't think he has any political principles or strong ideas at all tbh. His motivation is all based around what makes him feel most important. I think he would happily do a 180 degree turn on anything if he thought he could use it to his own personal gain.

In the famous words of one of his fellow Tory MP's 'Johnson is a man who waits to see which way the crowd is running and then dashes in front and says ‘follow me everyone!’'

One aspect of British culture that distinguishes it from American culture IMO is the sort of nihilism that produces a TV show like Black Mirror. It's my opinion that America could never have created that show. For a long time I've observed that British SF tends to be "gloomier" than American SF in general. I also see a bit of this in Canadian culture but not nearly so intense.

Agreed. I watched a creepy suspense drama involving two families with small children where one of the children dies. The whole thing was really dark but started like a lighted hearted family program.

Earl GREY, darling

That settles it, no scone with lemon curd for Cyberdad.He shall be Cybersad.

The people that are supposed to protect you aren't very protective. They just protect the wrong people, and the people that need it most get nothing.

Human rights is well over the top here. You get murderers that get let out of prison too early (even prison is too good for them), and then they murder again. These murderers must be treated with dignity and respect because of their "human rights". What rights should murderers have? And how can you even call them humans? All proven murderers should be lined up against a wall and shot. It would save a lot of innocent lives.

The child protection services are absolutely useless. A child falls over and hurts themselves in the playground and the (genuine, loving) parents get questioned and threatened to have their child taken away. An abusive parent with a starved and bruised child in a very filthy house has to only tell the authorities "my child is just clumsy" and they get believed, then the child suffers more abuse until they die an untimely death. It's so tragic and it angers me how these authorities are so blind to such obvious signs of child abuse and neglect.

And the way everyone is a potential paedophile too. A friend of mine works at a nursery for 3-year-olds, and the staff literally aren't allowed to touch the kids. If a child is hurt and needs comforting, the staff handling it must fill out a big form about the accident and why and where they have to touch the child and at what time and everything, and it takes so long to fill it out and leaving the poor child sitting there crying in pain and feeling frightened. I think it's gone over the top. It's because of pervy creeps like Jimmy Saville that got our society like this.

Stupid place, Britain.

Darn!

A lot of people enabled Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville by protecting them.

agreed