• I think I’ve always described why, again, that ‘otherness’ is itself a product of a national narrative of specialness that simply doesn’t hold. It is easier for you to feel that ‘otherness’ because you yourself identify somewhat with the culture you’re describing, i.e. the British. To you, as an Anglophone, the Brits ‘make sense’; to you, however, other Europeans will naturally fall into the category of ‘the other’ precisely because yours is a limited experience. (That’s the beauty of being raised a polyglot with an admittedly diffuse view of his personal culture—it’s difficult not to empathise with ‘the other’.) Having lived elsewhere in Europe and having tried to get a feel for ‘the psyche’ (whatever that means) of other European nations, you get a sense that there is, again, a sense of isolation in every national story—even in the tiniest of European nations. Is it any wonder the Brits try to define themselves against the German or French experience? Hardly, due to history. But likewise, the French have done so with the Brits and the Germans, and the Poles with the Russians the Germans.

• I’d also like to point out that a lot of the examples you use are rather romantic, but not entirely all that helpful. Every nation wishes to explain its character as exceptional to the national character of others (and hence the hard nationalism so endemic in the last century—despite, again, the porous nation of ‘national character’ to begin with.) That myth holds, of course, so it becomes easier for one to be in Paris and say, ‘wow, this feels so different to London!’ Find yourself in Seville a week later, however, and my do inter-country comparisons seem foolish! (My point: no European country, culture, or even region is that similar to another; that is a most superficial observation.)

• The opinion poll was in relation to politics and foreign policy. It has nothing to do with thinking Britain will become more European—again, that is a foolish thing for anyone to say. It is thus more indicative of the reality of the British experience. But perhaps you’d only agree with me if I let Thomas Paine do the talking: ‘England and America…belong to different systems. England to Europe: America to itself.’ That is ‘Common Sense’ indeed.

I’m not sure that primarily internal secession—e.g., Eritrea from Ethiopia—violates the territorial integrity norm (a second state is not violating the first’s integrity; the first state has de-amalgamated).

The problem arises when the seceding state does not constitute itself as a state, but instead amalgamates with a 3rd state. Will Russia allow N. Ossetia to secede and join S. Ossetia as a unified Ossetia? Russia is seeking to annex S. Ossetia, not provide for Ossetian self-determination.

I’m skeptical of the “viable state” argument as well—but it is fair to question whether a secessionist state could maintain an economy if relations are shot between it and the rump-state. Given that Ossetia would presumably have good relations with Russia, I don’t think this would be a concern.

You rightly say that there is no such thing as a single “European” identity which is quite factually true; Helsinki is indeed not Madrid. Believe me, I am not trying to force the quite disparate European mosaic of cultures into the same common cultural Procrustian bed out of ignorance of history or culture. Compliments of the USAF I spent some six years in the European “Theatre” at one time or another—from Norway to Turkey and Libya—and everywhere in between. Rather, for purposes of argument, I am suggesting that
there is a palpable “otherness” to the British psyche that is difficult to describe. It is like what one Supreme Court justice famously said of obscenity: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” And I don’t think I the only one who feels this way. The travel writer Paul Theroux
picked up on this vibe in his walking tour of GB in the book “Kingdom by the Sea.” (It was not well received, btw, probably because he really did paint the English as so “alien.” And the book was published at the height of his popularity!) So——-I’m not arguing that the English have
NO cultural or historical ties to the Continent, only that they they have that (And here ironically I’m using a “European” descriptive phrase) “je ne sais quois” qualitative difference so tough to pin down
in a precise academic way. Agree or not, that’s MY take—which is why I ended my last post with the “neither…. nor…..but especially neither”
bit.

I do find it amusing, however, to see you argue against a common “European” identity and yet cite a public opinion poll in support of part of your argument (“Britain’s future lies more with Europe than America”) which assumes just such a describable common identity
as a valid concept in use of the term “European.” Be that as it may, our differences are probable more a matter of degree than absolutes,
and I feel have more to do with current politics than history and cultural anthropology.

P O’Neill at no. 4 referenced Ulster and gave me an inspiration – wouldn’t a Boundary Commission sort out all this business about territorial norms?

Henry suggests at no. 30 that South Ossetia is just too small a state to be viable. So gerrymander the border to make it just about viable, say they get 6 counties instead of just 4?

You’re only partially right there, Virgil. I’m an American, born and raised, and repellent as my country’s actions have been in the last 7 years I do quite strongly believe America can be a force for good in the world. It needs to re-learn the importance of the Rule of Law, in my book, but I digress…

Let me be frank: I’ve never held starry-eyed views of the ‘special relationship’, as it does nothing to put UK-US relations in a historical context. America was no friend of Britain’s (the object of its jealousy) and Britain was no friends of America’s (the object of its derision) up until the turn of the last century. You can read about that elsewhere. The current relationship is one the British smartly chose to develop, and culturally learned to accept, asymmetrical though it was for them, because they believed they had no choice when faced with the prospect of German recidivism and Soviet aggression. (The great Tory Party shift from natural anti-Americanism to full-blooded support is precisely what I’m talking about by ‘cultural’ learning.) Insofar as those threats have been reduced to a minimum since 1991 it is no longer apparent to me why the UK should continue its consistent fealty to Washington, and not pursue its more appropriate long-term relationship with its continental neighbours. (The Lebanon-Israel war of 2006 put that into stark relief, where the vast majority of Britain’s people, the ruling party, and the opposition isolated Tony Blair and his pro-US/Israeli position.) The degree to which Mr. Blair aligned himself to President Bush still managed to shock people in this country, as multiple polls demonstrated. One, in fact, showed 65% of the UK population agreeing with the statement, ‘Britain ’s future lies more with Europe than with America.’ (Which was more, incidentally, than thought the US ‘special relationship’ was important to UK security—58%.)

Now, on the wider question: what exactly do you mean by ‘European’ sensibilities or even a ‘European’ identity? You seem to suggest that Britain isn’t meeting certain criteria by which to screen its interests, its culture and its people as ‘European’…but pray tell, what are those criteria? What standard makes one ‘European’? That Britain is historically, culturally, geographically and even institutionally linked to Europe seems beyond reproach to me…but does that mean there is a ‘single’ European-ness to begin with? Yours is a category error: you argue that Britain is not ‘European’ without defining what that empty signifier means; my argument is, if I may say so myself, more humble and realistic.

Also, geography doesn’t differentiate or subsume cultures in quite the way you suggest—by that view what do you do when defining Germany, France, Finland and Romania? For some ridiculous reason I sense you’d hesitate to say either/or, either they’re obviously similar or they’re clearly not. What do I mean to say with that? Precisely that you put an inordinate amount of importance on the existence of the English Channel to separate Britain from its neighbours, whilst being unable to do the same (or not) with equal objectivity to the states I listed above. You’re placing way too much emphasis on this notion that Britain is separated by a slither of sea water—whilst studiously ignoring all else that has, does and will bind Europe, including—yes—the fact of that very narrow body of water. What could one say that would bind Finland to Spain, but not Britain to Germany…or, indeed, not all to each other? I’ll be damned if you think there’s a shared ‘sensibility’ that makes walking through Madrid and walking through Helsinki a similar experience!

Many Europeans I know don’t see Britain as ‘non-European’ (not that it would in itself mean anything), but rather a ‘deluded European’ nation with a chip on its shoulder, LOL. Deluded because it thinks it can make Washington think its way, and that it should at all costs, and carrying a chip that has everything to do with wanting to play with the big boys on the world stage with a smaller pool of resources than before. The UK’s answer was to bind itself to the US and hope the former can influence the latter. It’s a silly strategy, if you ask me, but hey…(Its love of all things American—excepting Americans—is in itself not all that special either; ever wondered why northern Europeans sound like they could be in ‘Friends’ and not ‘Coronation Street’?)

The crux, here, is how that ‘difference’ compares to the view Europeans have for other non-UK Europeans…for example, most Swedes I know (and London is awash with them, thankfully) don’t see Spaniards as ‘more’ European than Britons. Why? Because quantifying a European identity (a loose concept as I’ve already suggested) is nonsensical from the start. You’re committing precisely that error.

You’re narrowly defining ‘European-ness’ by an oddly rigid (though from what you’ve said non-extant) checklist, when ‘Europeans’ have never been narrowly classifiable, neat and consistent. Europe, for all its wealth and stability, is not that at all: and thank heavens for it! It is what gives this (sub)continent that extra frisson I appreciate—that rubbing up (often to the point of chaffing) of very different cultures, languages and dispositions, which more often than not are bound to the fate of their neighbours. That is the Europe I’m talking about, not some silly checklist of ‘European-ness’ by which you differentiate Britain.

Ah foresight: when unspoken, far from ascribed; when spoken, often wrong. :-)

Take comfort in the geology reference all you like, mate, but the point stands. And, while you’re at it, don’t forget the many other points one can make to back up that statement: whether it be British history, its founding myths, its cultural evolution, its normative evolution, etc. Paint the canvas any way you like—you begin to see Britain as just another European state with its own sociocultural quirks. The ‘insularity’ argument doesn’t wash. The same, again, can be said of the French—from their literature, their news output, their (supposed) yearning for ‘la France profonde.’ Or any other people, European or otherwise. People care about what happens to them. I’ve seen BBC reporters going on about Team GB athletes during these Olympics for a week now; and yet I switch on over to France24 and get the same parochial view point. (The same goes for other ‘national champion’ news agencies across Europe, like Deutsche-Welle.)

If you pull back just a bit—I know, terribly hard—you’d see just how parochial YOUR arguments are. Those fortunate enough to compare across borders find that tabloid-fronted argument for ‘exception’ and ‘insularity’ ludicrous.

Obviously I don’t have the context but this must have been around 40 years ago and Phil Hill is American.

Those interested in a weirder angle on Phil Hill might want to check out David Cronenberg’s uniquely packaged script:

http://www.soupface.net/blog/2005/10/27/red-cars-is-a-film-is-a-book/

So while yes, GB is not totally unique in their “exceptionalism,” I still maintain that geography alone allows them to wollow in it more than most. (and thanks for not disappointing in bringing up the land-bridge historical reference)

The irony, of course, is pretty obvious: British exceptionalism has been neither all that exceptional, nor even all that British. (It was Charles I/V of Spain/Hapsburg who first defined his empire as one in which the sun ‘never sets’.) And one last thing…Britain was even physically a part of the continent up until the last ice age, after which rising seas made Britain, well, an island. I wouldn’t be too relieved at those rising seas, as they’ll spell trouble for Britons in the coming decades…

@ 96, novakant – LOL agreed. Perhaps a more appropriate definition: ‘mise-en-scène: whatever the hell one’s drama/film professor wants it to be.’ :-)

Favor Oppose Don’t know (%)
US 59 30 11
Join the war?
UK 39 51 10
Italy 17 81 2
Spain 13 81 7