Major Issues Bulletin 30 - EDP English Democratic Party.


	MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN


	THE SOUL OF ENGLAND -PART 1 * IS THERE SUCH A THING AS NATIONAL CHARACTER? We assume that, and it has lately been convenient for us to defend the very doubtful thesis that every society which has enough of a distinct tradition to be called a character, has a natural right to political independence and what is called in the jargon of the hour self -determination. It is plain that we cannot answer our question till we have decided what constitutes nationality. In my brief discussion of this question I wish to acknowledge a debt to Mr. Delisle Burns. John Stuart Mills says that any portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others, and which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people. It is further necessary that they should desire to be under the same government, and that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves. This definition, as Mr Burns says, would partly apply to almost any group, and partly only to an ideal society. Professor McDougall, though with caution and some reserves, accepts the theory of a race spirit, or group consciousness, which is not merely the sum or resultant of individual consciousness. This theory, which is held by many modern philosophers and psychologists, seems to me to involve an introduction of mysticism where it is least appropriate; but it is not necessary to argue the matter here. He is on firmer ground when he says the national characteristics are in the main the expressions of different traditions. The importance of tradition is worth emphasing. Renan too says, “that which causes men to form a people is the recollection of great things which they have done together, and the will to accomplish new things.” Thus he adds a common ideal, as equally important with common memories. A nation, says another writer, is any group, which feels itself to be a nation - a definition which favours those fissiparous movements, which in our time have broken up several larger aggregates (1926) However, as a rule we think we know what a nation means and we are ready with thumb-nail sketches of our neighbours, and even of ourselves. We think of the Scot as canny, thrifty, fond of metaphysics and controversial theology, and perhaps slow to understand a joke. This description may apply to the Lowlander, and to his near kinsman the north-country Englishman; it clearly does not suit the Highlander. We think of the Jew as keen in money-making, fond of display if rich, and adverse to physical exertion. We remember that the Romans found the Frenchmen of their day studious of the military art and of witty conversation; the modern Frenchman, we say, still exhibits those characteristics. Rank was strongly of this opinion. “Ambitious, warlike, incited by national pride, the French have kept their neighbours in constant excitement, sometimes liberating the oppressed, more often oppressing the free” We are ready to describe the typical Spaniard, the typical German, and the typical American. For ourselves we have the portly and good-natured John Bull, who in a cartoon, which moved Ruskin’s wrath, is represented as “guarding his pudding.” OUR CHARCTERISTICS, we say, are a love of LIBERTY, JUSTICE, and DUTY (so Bishop Creighton has it); we are honest but dull and stupid, for which reason we are frequently outwitted by the nimbler intellects of our rivals [hence our present perilous situation we find ourselves in 2006 -which also had the help of our own traitors within] Foreign nations do not seem to admit either our superior high-mindedness or our stupidity; but they grant us great tenacity. ENGLAND, the French say, is the country of WILL. These judgements are mostly very crude. Circumstances have much to do with the impression that a country makes abroad. Napoleon called the English a nation of shopkeepers, which is very inappropriate, for the English have never been good shopkeepers. They have excelled in manufactures and commerce, but not in shop-keeping, which demands a more rigid care for the pence than is often found among Anglo-Saxons. A ruling class may represent a country abroad and may there display the qualities which foreigners come to regard a characteristic of the nation as a whole, whereas in reality the masses have habits and ideals unlike those of the oligarths. A nation governed by an aristocracy may seem to be high-spirited, warlike, and contemptuous of trade and manual work; when the middle class is in power the same nation may appear pacific and fond of money; under universal suffrage it may say display very different characteristics. Besides all this, foreign conquest, emigration and immigration, and a differential birth-rate, may produce great changes in what is called national character. [As we can see in the early years of the 21^st century under Tony Blair] For instance, the conquest of a country by Nordic invaders may add to the population those enterprising and restless qualities, which belong to that race, and subsequently the submergence of the Nordics by another race, such as the Alpine, may give the nation the quality of stubborn tenacity in place of the chivalrous and adventurous disposition, which formerly distinguished it. Writers like Mr Lothrop Stoddard, who attach great and probably excessive importance to these racial characteristics, think that the French nation has become more “Alpine” both in blood and character since the Middle Ages. Certainly the behaviour of the soldiers in the Great War belied the traditional opinions about the qualities of French and English. The joviality and irrepressible gaiety of the British was contrasted with the tenacity and grimness of the French soldiery. Lastly, besides class differences, and changes from one period to another, there are provincial peculiarities, which may be important. Even within a compact nation there may be great local difference, which cannot escape the notice of a travelling stranger. In Spain, for example. The Galician is unlike the Andalusian, and the Catalan quite different from both. These considerations may prevent us following those writers who have romantically assigned fixed characters to the nations of Europe. But in spite of this, I think we may venture to claim certain qualities as characteristics of the ENGLISH PEOPLE -without attempting to decide whether they are racial, or due to our geographical position, our history, or our traditions. Since the days of the Saxons and Vikings, the English temper has been the temper of an *independent, free-spoken people* [Until Blairdom arrived in 1997] -who in ordinary times are refractory to discipline and impatient of restraint, each man feeling himself fit to rule; but in times of danger ready to combine, to form VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS - to obey the commanders whom they have chosen, and to trust them until they have proved themselves incompetent [as in Iraq since 2003] Fifteen hundred years ago Sidonius Appollinaris describes the Saxons he had seen them - ferocious barbarians, their faces painted blue, their long hair falling over their foreheads; shy and awkward among courtiers, but turbulent and animated among their ships. “One would think” he says, “that each oarsman was himself the arch-pirate.” We can trace this independent spirit all through our early history, till the time came to break entirely with the medieval theory of politics both in CHURCH and STATE. The rulers of the land the defiantly proclaimed that “ the English Church hath always been thought, and is at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior persons, to administer its own affairs and duties.” Similarly in secular matters, “By sundry old authorities, histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this REALM of ENGLAND Is An EMPIRE. -That is, a SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATION “and so hath been accepted in the WORLD, governed by one SUPREME HEAD and KING having dignity and royal estate of the imperial CROWN of the same.” Among the various early descriptions of the national character we may select that of Andrea Trevisano, Venetian Ambassador in 1497. “ The English are great lovers of themselves and everything belonging to them. They think that there are no other men like themselves, and no other world but England; and whenever they see a handsome foreigner, they say that he looks like an Englishman; and when they set any delicacy before a foreigner they ask him if such a thing is made in his country.” Count Magalotti, who accompanied Cosmo de Medici on a visit to Charles II in 1669, finds the English “are by nature proud and phlegmatic in their behaviour, so that they never hurry those who work for them by an indiscreet impatience, but suffer them to go at their own pleasure and according to their ability. This proceeds from their melancholy temperament, for which those who live in the north are more remarkable than those who live in the south, the former being saturnine and the latter more lively. They consider a long time before they come to a determination, but having once decided, their resolution is irrevocable, and they maintain their opinion with the greatest obstinacy. The English are men of a handsome countenance and shape, and of an agreeable complexion, which they owe to their climate and to the salubrity of the air, and to their use of beer rather than wine. They are of a most manly spirit, and valiant even to rashness in war both by land and sea.”… * [What a right moment to close our Part I disclosure of THE SOUL OF ENGLAND Taken from ENGLAND by WILLIAM RALPH INGE Published by HODDER AND STOUGHTON -1926 and 1938] PART 2 *** * * [Font altered-bolding &underlining used -comments in brackets] APRIL/06** * * Let the people speak! www.makeitanissue.org.uk * www.noliberties.com [Latest Addition - June07] * www.eutruth.org.uk * www.thewestminsternews.co.uk * www.speakout.co.uk * Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs * GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ * 67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM * PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum * July 18-2007 ALSO JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/ The Petition reads as follows: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature." Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008 Eurofacts 27th July 2007. * 'The Spirit of England' by Winston Churchill In London on St.George's Day -1953 * VOTE -2007 TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY www.ukip.org THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER ‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’ -SIMPLE IS IT NOT? TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. * ONLY PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY? * Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOT HOME RULE for ENGLAND * [All underlined words have a separate bulletin]

THE SOUL OF ENGLAND -PART 1