Talk:Anti-English sentiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Talk page clean-up

I have cleared this discussion page since there has not been any more controversy since the article was rewritten, and the old comments could be misinterpreted as referring to the new page. Issues can be looked up in the history page in any case! Starpol 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you're not really suppose to edit the talk pages with a few exceptions. As an alternative solution consider archiving older discussions so they can be easily accessed yet aren't "in the way." Benjiboi 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about "racism" and "cultural superiority"

Hey there, since British people do not constitute a race, I don't think it makes sense to speak of anglophobia as "racism" towards them. Even if they did constitute a race, as the page on racism says, the notion of "reverse racism" is at best controversial. Also, stating that England is politically dominant in the British isles is acceptable, but that they're culturally dominant? Come on! Can we edit these two things out?

Macho Philipovich 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't accept it as racism, why not xenophobia, which is much the same thing. Alun 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well England is culturally dominant in the UK, everyone speaks English and whereas many English people may be uninformed as to the specifics of Welsh or Scottish culture, Welsh and Scottish people are more than au fait with English culture. I went to a Welsh language school in Wales and we studied Shakespeare and English poetry etc. Alun 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And what does constitute a race? Maybe you should look at wiki's page on Race. There is no biological underpinning for the word, it's a purely cultural concept. 217.196.239.189 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Alun 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Celtophobia

Celtophobia is having a VfD. It's a stupid article, have a look at the talk page for my opinion, it's related to this article. Alun 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sport

I removed the section about football hooliganism. This problem is a general one in football and is displayed by rival fans of all nations. It is not the Englishness of the fans that causes the violence, but the fact that they are the fans of any rival team. Alun 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Is it just a coincidence that soccer incites violence in england but not in north america? no. its because the british are psychopaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Spleen (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Devolution

It is not explained in the text how this sentence is in any way related to anglophobia. I can see no relevance, I have not removed it but will in the near future if someone does not explain how it fits into the article. Devolution is a UK political phenomenon, the devolved assemblies/parliaments derive their authority from the UK Parliament and not from England, they include London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was a referendum for an assembly in the North East of England in 2004 that failed.[1].
Devolution in the United Kingdom created new institutions in a significant constitutional change that established regional governments that would be able to legislate individually for members of the union, while maintaining its perceived benefits. Alun 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Orwell Quote

The quote itself says "Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia", so what on earth is the point of quoting Orwell's attack on Celtic nationalism here? Rhion 12:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. Neither of the quotes (Bronte's or Orwell's) actually refer to Anglophiobia as a cultural phenomenon, as the introduction to the section implies. One quote merely refers to it in passing as anti-English sentiment, the other simply uses it to state that Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia. It would make more sense if the section was simplified, and was just a list of literary quotes in which the word occurs. The introduction could dispense with the current wording and say something like Use of the word Anglophilia in literature. The quotes do not have to be so long either, these would do:

I read Anglophobia in your looks, and hear it in your words.

Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation....But Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as Anglophobia.

and I'm not sure the first section of the Orwell quote is absolutely necessary. Alun 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

USA

During the period of alliance between Britain and the USA, andglophobia took another form. Fleet Admiral Ernest King had been noted for his anglophobic views which affected his decision making during the Second Battle of the Atlantic.

So what were the decisions that were affected by his anglophobia?. If you don't give the decisions, and the reason why they are considered to be influences by anglophobia then this sentence, though referenced, serves no purpose. Alun 05:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the sentance makes the reader aware of one important historic instance where anglophoabia may have played a part. The reasons are given in the article on Ernest King reached by the internal link. I didnt want to duplicate the same detail here.Starpol 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's a bit confusing, as the sentence reads, Anglophobia took another form, but we are left guessing what that other form actually is. The article on Ernest King is not much more illuminating, it just mentions a single decission might have been due to his Anglophobia, but it is not verified, and I have done a google to try to get some verification for this, but to no avail. Alun 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The statement that the term was coined in 18thC. America should appear in the intro along with the definition. And doesn't the definition (omitting the 'irrational' aspect of phobia) include attitudes that are perfectly reasonable and understandable?--Shtove 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This article does need to be changed a bit. I would also re-think the deltion of the football hooliganism as although it is found in various other countries, England does have a particularly bad reputation for it, and violence surrounding football involving England fans often does not involve "hooligans" meaning the organised football firms that operate in every country but normal English people who are prone to disrespecting, offending and abusing others. The behaviour of English people abroad in general, and not just relating to football, has a reputation for being pretty awful. Benson85 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed

"England has historically overshadowed the international standing of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, at times, even the United Kingdom.[5] Consequently, Anglophobia within the UK is linked to England’s position as the politically and culturally dominant member of the union.[neutrality disputed] [6] As well as its aggressive and oppressive history towards Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and arrogant attitude towards them in modern times."

Two points to make in relation to this:

1. Devolution has created a new power dynamic within the United Kingdom and some English people, such as the English Democrats, argue that Scottish MPs have more power than they should - and also point to the number of Scottish politicians occupying key positions in the British government.

2. What does this talk of arrogant attitudes relate to? Is this not in the eye of the beholder?

I think this entire article is a little too anecdotal - and contains some bias.

User:Anon 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Devolution is not relevant to anglophobia as a concept. Anglophobia is irrational, people only need excuses to be Anglophobic they do not need real reasons. You will also see that the reference is to history, are you disputing that England has historically overshadowed the other nations? This section is referenced, if you can find a reference for the other point of view (that England hasn't historically overshadowed the other nations) then they should be included. Your comments about Scottish politicians are irrelevant to this page, take them up on articles about devolution, though I would note that Scotland is part of the UK, so why shouldn't Scottish politicians be there, this is not the government of England, but of the UK. The sentence about arrogance has been removed, it has obviously been put there by someone who seems to be suffering from anglophobia themselves, it is not referenced.Alun 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quebec

As it stands, the section on Quebec is not relevant to an article on Anglophobia. As far as I can tell, it's about the relationship of the French-speaking Canadians with the colonial government and its federal successor. That isn't the subject of this article. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be a section on Quebec: it may be that there are published references to Anglophobia in Quebec, as opposed to political friction between Canadians, or discrimination against English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. However, unless someone comes up with such references, I suggest we delete the section. Countersubject 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems little more than a defence of anti-anglophone and anglophobia in Quebec. Like, the British state did all these terrible things to Quebecers a century or so ago, so it's OK for us to be anglophobes and to hate other Canadians now. It's the same sort of twisted logic we get from certain groups of anti-English nationalists in the UK, so they can justify their messages of hate and racism. The truth in the UK is that most of our history is about exploitation/repression by the gentry and the aristocracy of the general working population, there's never been any systematic oppression of one ethnic group by another that I know of. The article also fails to give the other POV, which is that Quebec now has a fair degree of autonomy and that it is English that is supressed and not French. Alun 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish historians will no doubt disagree on a "never any oppression" statement for the British Isles, and I won't get into the colonies. I would like to clear up things on the "English" of Quebec. Among the minorities in Canada, the English-speaking minority of Quebec is the one with the most extended linguistic rights, much more than those of French-speaking minorities in English Canada. They are comparable and often superior to those of other national minorities in the world. The community has the right to use English at the National Assembly of Quebec and all laws are promulgated and translated in English. The members of their community also have the right to trials in their language and the judge is obligated to render judgement in English. They can obtain all services in English from the Quebec public administration and various municipalities. They have their own extensive quality media (press, television, radio, etc.). With a proportion of 8%-10% of the population, they have three prestigious universities well-funded by the Quebec government. They control their own various health and social service institutions and their hospitals obtain a proportion of hospital funding actually much larger than their proportion (a recent funding had the money split 50-50 between two Montreal hospital projects, one French and one English, while the Montreal proportion of Anglophones is 25%). In English Canada, the only French-speaking hospital west of Quebec, Montfort Hospital, has suffered an attempt to close it by the Ontario government in the 1990s (it was finally prevented by the Court of Appeal). The English minority controls its schools, where 97% of its children can go. In some English Canadian provinces, only 10% of the French minority children can be educated in a French-speaking school. They have access to all partly state-controlled services. [2] The rights of the English minority are protected in Quebec Law, they are upheld by succeeding government of all colours and the nationalist have included the firm guarantee of their rights in the party platforms and the legal documents pertaining to their sovereignty project in referendums. The Quebec government, under a nationalist government, in 1999, promulgated the policy that makes sure that 25% of all new hirings, internships and summer jobs in the Quebec public service be given to English-speakers, allophones and aboriginals. --Liberlogos 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read what you have written, it is massively hypocritical to state that what I said was POV, yours was simply a defence of racism in Quebec, you provide no sources or citations and give no other point of view. At least I have provided a source. If you want to give the other POV, ie that there is no anti-anglophone racial tension in Quebec, then provide a source and put it in. This article is not here to spread the message that it's OK to hate English/British and anglophone Canadians because the British government were nasty to us first. If you want to start a race hate campaign then I suggest you do it elsewhere. This is not a history article.Alun 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Irish and Scottish historians will no doubt disagree on a "never any oppression" statement for the British Isles. Not in my experience, only Irish and Scots nationalists disagree. I never made any claim for never any oppression, you are deliberately changing what I said in order to contradict a claim I never made. The question is who were the oppressors and who the oppressed? My experience of both Irish and Scots historians on wikipedia is that they don't see any oppression except that of the aristocracy/gentry/rulers against the people. Where is the evidence of racial oppression of Scots or Irish people by English people? For example the worst oppression Scotland ever saw was the Highland Clearances, but this crime was commited by the Scots indigenous aristocracy, before Scotland chose to unify with England. The worst suffering in Ireland was the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849), but this crime was commited by the UK state and had little to do with the sufferers being Irish and everything to do with the state being indifferent to the poorer classes. Scotland, England and the UK were not democracies during any of these periods, and so they were not supported or carried out by the people, or even by governments that could reasonably claim to be representing the people. English and Welsh people suffered just as much from the authoritarian attitude of the state, a wave of land enclosures (essentially the state or state institutions stealing common land for private use) occured in England before those of the Highland Clearances in Scotland see Enclosure. The state massacred English and Welsh working people just as freely as Irish, Scots or Quebecers, see Peterloo Massacre (See also Corn Laws, Riot Act, Chartism). As for the colonies, that has little to do with English or British people and everything to do with a greedy ruling elite. It is typical of racists/nationalists to conflate a whole people (English/British people) with the historical actions of a small authoritarian unrepresentative elite (the aristocracy), it serves their purpose to portray themselves as the victims of a mythical historical racism so as to justify their own racism. Be that as it may, this is irrelevant to the anglophobia article, as is the totality of your response, what has the status of Anglophone Quebecers got to do with anglophobia? I just had a communication from an anglophone Canadian that gave the opposite impression to the one you give, not that I really care, I consider it petty in the extreme to fight like children about who started it, racism is racism whether it's perpetrated by francophone or anglophone Canadians. This article does not exist in order to justify racism, the article is about a thing called anglophobia it is not about the excuses used by nationalists to defend their racism. Alun 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

An important source of the problem is that I believed this article stood for general "opposition" in all forms. Sometimes Wikipedia articles are badly titled because a common expression is not found to encompass the subject matter. Its inclusion in the "Anti-national sentiment" category gave me a wrong impression and I believed it was "the" equivalent article. ...and I thought such an article dealt with petty rivalry. Example: the Anti-Canadianism article deals with an anti-Canadian sentiment in the US by citing trivial things like the Missile Defense Plan refusal by the Canadian government and in Brazil by speaking of government subsidies to a planes and trains building company. Anti-Canadianism cites South Park, the movie. Anti-Australian sentiment cites Australian soap operas. So, the examples listed were not supposed to justify anything more than did the love affairs of TV show Neighbours. If one is fair, one will see that the examples of "opposition" cited in the second part were not hatred, only refusal to be a subject of a chief of state, which shows what I believed the article could touch. If I hadn't, I never would have added that. After a small edit I made, a Wikipedian asked me to "cite" the "historical events" the original section mentioned and I tried to do it to be helpful. I agree with you then: the section is not relevant to "Anglophobia" in this definition. My comment on the Anglo-Quebecois was a clarification on what you brought up here on this talk page, nothing else. I hope it is understood that my attempts were not ill-intentioned and that the perception that any of this listing justified what was accused it justified is a misunderstanding. I state my anglophilia and say how much the English are my very brothers. --Liberlogos 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's a genuine mistake, I can see where the confusion might arise. Sorry if it got a bit heated. All the best. Alun 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is indeed a social discrimination of anglophones (not only English Canadians) in Québec. The institutionalised forms of racism are another story; as said, this should discuss popular sentiment, and there is a popular anti-English sentiment in Québec; one need only "infiltrate" the francophone community to hear countless stories about "un maudit anglais", opinions for their expulsion, whining and complaints about them - and yet there is no real difference between the behaviour of French and English Québécois, both having their share of pleasant and unpleasant people. The sole difference is one's use of the English language, which is then translated into an essentially racial difference, and a fierce expression of negative nationalism on the part of the Québécois. This is not something in the provincial Parliament; it is a crystal-clear social phenomenon, from every dépanneur to every school and every household - because anglophones have to go home every day after having been beaten on for living where and how they choose; for excercising their fundamental human rights. It exists everywhere, not just in the law, and thus has its place here.

Move to Anti-English sentiment

Moving this to Anti-English sentiment, would be a good idea. It would follow a Wikipedia standard (and solidify it), it is a more neutral term and encompasses more elements, elements that can be included nowhere else. The study of what could have partly contributed to a unfavourable sentiment would no longer be labeled as making excuses for hatred. The extreme forms of negative sentiment, that fall under the concepts of racism or xenophobia, would still be examined. ...or, if deemed necessary, the alternative would be to split the article into Anglophobia & Anti-English sentiment. --Liberlogos 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is a red herring. Changing the title won't address the points I made about your edits (see above, at the head of the Quebec section). Also, 'Anglophobia' is a widely recognised term. By all means set up a re-direct from 'Anti-English Sentiment', but changing the title to avoid hard questions about an individual's edits isn't a good idea. Countersubject 07:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I only witnessed the contention over Scotland, Ireland and Quebec matters (not over an individual's edits) and thought it grew from a problem in the different understandings of the range of the article. The peaceful opposition to a country or government or humorous rivalry with them is still a social phenomenon that cannot, regarding the country/government in question here, be discussed in this article (as it is) or other articles at the moment. This is the remark. --Liberlogos 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Liberlogos I think there really is a misunderstanding on your part here. Above in the Quebec section of the discussion page you state that you misunderstood the Anglophobia article because it was included in the Anti-national sentiment category, but this is the correct category, England is a nation and Anglophobia is the hatred of the English as a nation. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are nations as well, some people think of the British as a nation. Nations are not the same as states, nations are groups of people that have a shared culture/history/language and usually territory. States are political entities that have governments and armies etc, hence the concept of the Stateless nation. Any category that lists Anti-national sentiment should be about racism/xenophobia against a nation or ethnic group (see the difference between Ethnic group, Nation, State and Country). I maintain that though it is clearly in the scope of an encyclopaedia to have articles about various types of anti-national sentiment, it is not in its scope to try to defend or excuse this by the use of historical events to explain the reason for the ethnic hatred. I think that what you contributed here and would like to contribute to your proposed Anti-English sentiment article correctly belongs in the History of Quebec article, or possibly a specific article about the History of the conflict between Quebec and the United Kingdom and subsequently Canada. Alun 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is my understanding that in the English language, "nation" meaning "sovereign state" is a common definition. I have consulted various English language dictionaries about "nation". They mostly list the definition of a political entity / country / state as first entry, and mention the concept you have brought forward afterwards. I will quote those entries about the first type of definition.

The Collins dictionary says that a "nation" is:

1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc., organized into a single state the Australian nation; [3]

Cambridge dictionary gives:

1. [C] a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc:

All the nations of the world will be represented at the conference.

The Germans, as a nation, are often thought to be well organized.

Practically the whole nation watched the ceremony on television. [4]

American Heritage gives:

1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state. [5]

Also, Merriam-Webster lists:

1. a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality [6]

And the Wikipedia nation article you cite notes the ambiguity:

• Ambiguity in usage (section): In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.

This conception is seen in the use of expressions like "national representation" or even the "United Nations", which concern sovereign states, "nationalization" which is taking assets into state ownership, as well as governmental organizations such as the National Security Agency in the USA, the National Health Service in the UK or the National Assembly in France. I understand that in the United Kingdom, the term "nation" is more easily bestowed to "peoples", "cultural societies" and I salute it (sharply unlike in English Canada, in which calling Quebec a nation is highly controversial), so that might have created a misunderstanding on your part also. So, the term "anti-national" is not antinomic with an opposition to a state. The suggestion about the History of Quebec article or a specific article about the History of the conflict between Quebec and the United Kingdom and subsequently Canada does not seem ideal if it were the only place where it would be since it isolates it, instead of a collective article (I guess it could be something like 'Conflict with the United Kingdom'). Also, I pointed out that my concern was international, not only Quebec.

Also, I wonder if a discouragement of the mention of events is the right choice; it may keep our heads in the sand. Even if we talk of hate, it can be influenced, stoked by certain events, even if it is not a right reaction and even if we don't like it. The hater witnesses an event and draws their own wrong conclusions. Pointing this out is an observation that can be useful to comprehend the issue and which does not condone the subsequent behaviour of the subject. As examples (which should not be made into anything they're not): in the United States, a number of people criticize the "They hate us for our freedom" view of opposition to the USA, maintaining that the issue is more complex. Some maintain also that war or prisoner abuse feeds the hate. It does not entail that those people justify the hate or the violence. I am also reminded of two Quebec tragedies. One involved an armed man storming in the National Assembly of Quebec (Denis Lortie) and one a university shooting of women (Marc Lépine). The first had the criminal motivated by an opposition to the government and the second motivated by a hate for feminism. In the Columbine shooting, the perpetrators had been bullied at school. If these aspects were removed from a study of the events, something would be lost from the possibility to study and try to understand. Yet mentioning it in no way equates to justification of the response or even to agreement about the nature of the initial event. --Liberlogos 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You still seem to be confused, these definitions do not apply to the state, but to the people that live in the state, the population if you will, they do not refer to the state itself. In the examples you quote only one states that the nation is the state, the others simply claim that the nation is the people:

Cambridge: a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.

Note with their own government, it is not the state, but the people that is being refered to.

American Heritage: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government

Again it is the people and not the state that is refered to, and it's usually independent government, independent government is not a prerequisite.

For example the term nation in Great Britain is used to describe the peoples of Wales, England and Scotland; but it is also sometimes used to describe the whole of the population of Great Britain (and sometimes the UK). So people can refer to the Welsh nation and also to the British nation, though the concept of a British nation is rejected by many nationalists. It is also true that many new states encourage their populations to identify as a single nation in order to foster a sense of shared identity, Australia is a prime example, as is the USA. It is worth noting that the word nationality is a legal term used to denote citizenship in UK law, so my nationality is legally British, this simply means that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. Alun 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the article, I would prefer to abandon the use of different countries as sub headings, and concentrate on the concept of Anglophobia. The issue of percieved historical injustices can be mentioned, but I think it needs to be expressed in its correct context. What I mean by this is that we can mention that England/Grea Britain/the UK has used force on numerous occasions against various ethnic groups and nations, and that the use of force by the state has led to a resentment of the nation (ie the people), and that this resentment has, in some cases been used by nationalists to demonise the whole people. Alun 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)