Brit-Am Ephraimite Forum no. 52
Brit-Am Ephraimite Discussion. News and Issues concerning the Lost Ten Tribes and Judah in the World Today.
For Previous issues see:
Ephraimite Forum Archives
Ephraimite
Forum
no.52
The Brit-Am Rose
Official Symbol of Brit-Am
Ephraimite Forum-52
Date: 11/April/08 6th Nissan 5768
Contents:
1. English National Character: Extracts
from a Book Review
2. Interesting Article on Syrian Jews in Brooklyn, New York
3. Condoleeza
Rice Oil Tank Picture- A Fake?
1. English National Character: Extracts
from a Book Review
H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Albion@h-net.msu.edu (April 2008)
Peter Mandler. _The English National Character: The History of an Idea from
Edmund Burke to Tony Blair?_. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
2006. x + 348 pp. Notes, bibliography, index. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN
0-300-12052-4.
Reviewed by Eric G. E. Zuelow, Department of History, West Liberty State
College
Extracts:
Uncovering the English National Character
A "chicken or the egg" question hangs over the study of nations,
nationalism, and national identity. Did nations come before nationalism or
the other way around? Once asked, this query immediately generates still
more equally vexing problems. How can one identify the presence of a
nation? Is it enough to find national consciousness among social elites or
is it critical to find broad support among the masses? Is it necessary for
historical actors to use the term "nation" or are words such as "kingdom"
acceptable substitutes that ultimately meant the same thing?[1] These are
not merely historical questions and quickly involve anthropological,
sociological, philosophical, and linguistic concerns. With almost as many
definitions of and ideas about nations as there are studies, most scholarly
treatments speak past one another, further confusing issues that need no
more obfuscation.
According to Mandler, national character is a modern idea, little more than
200 years old. During much of the Middle Ages, collective identities were
based largely on the king: the king personified the people. By the
fifteenth century "Englishness" was beginning to appear as a concept that
was usually tied to admiration of English laws and institutions. Without
the widespread use of print language, however, there was little room for a
vernacular of character.
By the seventeenth century new theories of historical origins provided the
English with "more sharply national" qualities (p. 12), but intellectuals
did not outline a firm notion of English character, with the nation as a
centerpiece of analysis, until the Enlightenment. In the mid-eighteenth
century thinkers such as Baron de Montesquieu posited the idea that
geography and climate might define a people's characteristics. Soon
intellectuals such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Edmund Burke started to
apply similar ideas to the English. According to Mandler, Burke's
contribution to this burgeoning dialogue was especially important. The
Dublin-born philosopher and politician wrote about an English inheritance,
arguing that English history reflected a continuity of character across
time--a character that helped explain the powerful democratic institutions
that define political life in England. For Burke, institutions, English law
and parliament in particular, along with the governing classes, exemplified
Englishness. England was the pinnacle of civilization, its people the
creators of something great who enjoyed an obligation to encourage others to
follow them.
As time passed, the idea of England as a "mongrel nation" that benefited
from both Saxon and Celtic traits gradually eclipsed the civilizational
model. Confidence in the union was at a peak and the idea of the mongrel
nation made it possible to acknowledge English dominance in Britain while
also recognizing the contributions of both the Scots and even the Irish.
When combined, the strengths of each group helped explain why Britain was
the dominant world power. Both reason and emotion were joined, creating a
genuinely balanced people (pp. 66-67).
In contrast to the "mongrel nation idea," based more on environment than
race, racial explanations of English character gained popularity during the
1850s and 1860s. If the English were superior, as their burgeoning empire
suggested to contemporaries, then it was necessary to fully explain why.
Further, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865 both
"stirred up English anger against the 'ingratitude' of fractious colonial
subjects and English doubts about their capacity for civilization" (p. 72).
What made these people behave so poorly while the English behaved so well?>
For many, race seemed an obvious answer, but this response took various
forms. There were those such as J. C. Prichard who felt that humanity formed
a single species and that differences were superficial. Meanwhile,
polygenist thinkers held that each race represented a distinct species. In
contrast to both, Lamarckian thinkers argued that the races started out
closely related and subsequently, due to environmental factors, diverged.
Here again, the idea of English national character remained far from fixed.
Even as racialist thought sought to produce a more scientific explanation of
difference, Charles Darwin's _Origin of the Species_ (1859) problematized
racial explanations by dramatically expanding the historical timeline that
most racialists used. For Darwin, species evolved over thousands of years,
yet England was settled and had evolved quite recently. How could racial
divergence explain changes that must have occurred in hundreds rather than
thousands of years? As a result, many became obsessed with Teutonic
explanations for English character. Between the rise of Napoleon III and
his defeat by the Germans in 1870, English hostility toward France and
affection for Germany reached its peak. In the context of the time, it made
sense to celebrate England's Anglo-Saxon origins and to point toward popular
ideas about an ancient "Saxon constitution" which bordered on
proto-democracy (p. 87). Teutonic strength produced England's great
institutions and empire.
Like its antecedents, Teutonism could not last. German unification and the
subsequent development of German imperialism made it difficult to celebrate
Germanic roots. Likewise, the traumatic impact of the Boer War made
celebrating imperialist exploits equally troubling. By the early twentieth
century, the new view of England was a "'Merrie England' of lords and
peasants, cakes and ale, folk song and pageantry" (p. 139). England was no
longer a place of bluster, but a place of peace. The English increasingly
celebrated their ability to "muddle through" crises (p. 138), while
returning to their peaceful ways immediately afterward. By the end of the
First World War, the old racialist conception of England was popular only
among a small minority, while the English were increasingly seen in terms of
a character type: the "Little Man"--complete with a bowler hat, bow tie, and
tightly furled umbrella. The Little Man was "small, kindly, bewildered,
modest, obstinate and very lovable" (p. 163). While previously considered
dower, in the wake of World War I, the English imagined themselves to have a
sense of humor and to be especially kind to animals.
Yet national character remained far from fixed. During the Second World
War, the Little Man view came under attack. It was not that critics
necessarily disliked the Little Man, but rather that this "quintessentially
English" characteristic caused people to be absorbed in home life and kept
them "pottering in the garden" when they should have been tuned into world
events. As A. J. Cummings wrote of his countrymen: "they were prepared to
present half the world to Herr Hitler on a silver salver if only he would
leave them to their own agreeable and prosperous devices, to their motor
cars, their cinemas, their bungalows, their holidays at the seaside, their
multiple shops, to all the congenial paraphernalia of a thriving and
developing trade" (p. 185). Even during Britain's darkest hour, however,
not everybody could begrudge the English national character. Yes, they were
asleep at the wheel during the 1930s, but once the crisis was on, the
English rose to the occasion. This ability to face adversity was soon
integrated into the national character.
After the war, the English celebrated their character at the Festival of
Britain and looked forward to a return to normalcy--but normalcy did not
last. The splintering of popular culture during the 1960s, the economic
troubles of the 1970s, and Margaret Thatcher's failure to reignite belief in
the national character all served to undermine the idea. For many, England
was best exemplified by the past. Heritage centers and museums sprung up
everywhere, prompting some to wonder whether England was about to become
little more than a heritage museum. English national character seemed
quaint, hardly indicative of a people who were more diverse than ever
before.
While too recent for inclusion in Mandler's book, Gordon Brown's effort to
develop a "'statement of values' defining what it means to be British"
represents only the latest stage in this long-running dialogue. In an age
of "England after Character," (pp. 196-242) Mandler's readers should be
little surprised that the government faces a difficult road toward finding
such a statement. In an age of speedy communication and transportation,
emigration and diversity, the concept of English national character today
inspires little more than cynicism. For example, _Times of London_ readers
replied to a motto-writing contest with phrases such as "Dipso, Fatso,
Bingo, Asbo, Tesco," "Once Mighty Empire, Slightly Used," "We Apologize for
the Inconvenience," and, most popular of all, "No Motto Please, We're
British." Evidently the latest debate about national character is whether
it is desirable to attempt any definition of that character at all. As one
motto-writer put it, "this idea of a statement of Britishness; I cannot
think of anything less British than that."[2] If Mandler's book suggests
anything about what to expect in the future, however, it is that the debate
about character will continue, even if cynicism about character represents
the new character.
_The English National Character_ is an excellent book, full of gradations,
anecdote, and intriguing arguments... First, Mandler makes clear
that English national character is a modern idea. He will undoubtedly find
disagreement among both early modernists and medievalists. Sociologist Liah
Greenfeld, for example, cites John Milton's belief that liberty was "the
distinguishing characteristic of Englishness,"[3] a view not terribly
different from that of Burke, Smith, and Hume some 150 years later. Was
Milton ahead of his time or was he responding to a larger dialogue about
what marked the English as different from their continental neighbors?
Second, _The English National Character_ is likely to prompt objections from
scholars concerned with ordinary people as opposed to social and political
elites. Although Mandler does briefly discuss the popular reception of
ideas on several occasions and while his study increasingly crosses class
barriers upon reaching the twentieth century, this book is primarily
concerned with the ideas of a narrow elite. While the debates outlined here
are fascinating and important, it is highly unlikely that handloom weavers,
a group whose fortunes were dramatically and adversely effected by
industrialization during the early nineteenth century, sung the praises of
parliament or discussed the particulars of John Stuart Mill's effort to
found a science of national character as they rested in their hovels at the
end of a fourteen-hour day. At a time when most historians agree that
nationalism and national identity was on the ascent, is it reasonable to
assume that ordinary workers had no perception of an English national
character? Where they completely excluded from the discussion?
Finally, Mandler's effort to create a more complex language with which to
explore questions of identity is an extremely valuable one, but it certainly
does not simplify the underlying challenges. If anything, his book
complicates matters tremendously by showing just how transient identities
are. Sense of self and community shifts almost constantly. Demonstrating
this is no bad thing. Indeed, it is refreshing in a field of study where
identity is often viewed as a simple top-down construction. Yet we are
still left with more questions than answers.
2. Interesting Article on Syrian Jews in
Brooklyn, New York
The Sy Empire
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/magazine/14syrians-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnlx=1207802757-uVPiedFXSMlesebSFlzppA
by ZEV CHAFETS
Extract:
The Syrian Jews ...arrived in New York at the start of the last century and
settled on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. But the Eastern European Jews who
dominated the Lower East Side at the time disdained them as Arabische Yidden -
Arab Jews. Some of the Ashkenazim openly doubted that these foreigners from
farther east were Jews at all. The Syrian Jews were deeply insulted. They are a
proud people; community legend boasts that King David built the first synagogue
in Aleppo, in what is now Syria. The SY's came to derisively refer to the
Ashkenazim as "J-Dubs," a play on the first and third letters of the English
word "Jew." As soon as they could, the Syrians moved, en masse, to Brooklyn.
3.
Condoleeza
Rice Oil Tank Picture- A Fake?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle Bowie
re Ephraimite Forum-51
#3. "Counter Conspiracy Theory Suggestions and the Big Oil Money".
Is Big Oil Money behind US Pressure on Israel?
http://www.britam.org/Ephraimite/EF51.html#Counter
The picture of the Chevron oil tanker is a fake. The name of Condoleeza Rice has
been superimposed on it. Probably done to send a message, but not real all the
same.
Brit-Am Reply:
Wikipedia (10 April 2008) said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
<<Rice headed Chevron's committee on public policy until she resigned on January
15, 2001, to become National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush.
Chevron honored Rice by naming an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her, but
controversy led to its being renamed Altair Voyager.[27]
Quoted Source by Wikipedia,
27: Carla Marinucci. Chevron redubs ship named for Bush aide. Condoleezza Rice
drew too much attention. San Francisco Chronicle, May 5, 2001. Retrieved
February 29, 2008.
To Make an Offering to Brit-Am
Send a check to
Brit-Am
POB 595
Jerusalem 91004
Israel
or deposit a donation in our
PayPal Account
http://britam.org/books.html#donate
Contribute to Brit-Am
Correspond with us
Send Comments or Criticisms
You may not always receive an immediate answer but anything you say will be considered and appreciated
Send us an
e-mail
Books and Offering Opportunities
Main Page
