Eurovision is just a bit of good fun, it's a shame that the British public can't get over winning all the time, and also that other countries continue so openly with block voting. Just vote for the most entertaining song, forget about the nationalities. In actual fact forget the voting, I just enjoy watching to see what crazy acts manage to get on it.
I also want to reply to some of the previous comments made about England vs United Kingdom. My response is from a cultural perspective, not a political one, though there's a very fine line in between (which I hopefully won't cross). If one of the mods does feel the response is overly political then please accept my apologies and feel free to remove the offending content.
Stinger said:
I'll refer to a country by its given name, and not the UK, because with "UK" national identity is lost to a collective term
What is a country? What is a nation? The fact is the definitions of both are so messed it's probably best to avoid using the words. I'm quoting from the Oxford English dictionary here:
Quote
Country: The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.
Nation: A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state.
These definitions completely blur the line between a political and a cultural entity. The United Kingdom is a country and a nation because we all live under the same state (the same laws), yet it is also composed of smaller countries and nations such as England and Scotland because of historical memories. The very definition is ludicrous, something that becomes even more obvious if we consider a scientific term. If I told you that a proton was composed of many smaller protons you'd tell me I was wrong. How can an object be composed of smaller yet identical versions of itself? We now know that a number of quarks compose a proton, as a number of protons and other particles compose an atom, atoms that compose a molecule, and so on and so forth.
It's far more accurate to use terms such as state and cultures. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland (to use the full name) is the state which just happens to be divided for administrative purposes along the historic states of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Every official documentation is from the state (the UK): passports, birth certificates, driving licenses, etc.
These historic states (England, etc) also have distinct cultures that are often confused with states, the most obvious example of this being sports teams, namely in football and rugby. These are exceptions though, not evidence of there being a seperate state.
And IMHO, these cultures aren't even distinct enough from each other to merit being called a 'state', or even the disputed terms 'country' or 'nation'. Scottish culture is different to English culture, of course, and Welsh to English, and so on. But look closer: the culture of the north of England is far closer to Scottish culture than to Southern English. Historically speaking Welsh culture is closer to Irish than to English. Old Cornish culture is nothing like the culture of London. The native language of Scotland, Scots Gaelic, is not a dialect of English, or Welsh, but of Gaeilge (Irish). Inside Scotland there is the very distinct culture of Highlands as opposed to the cities. Once you look past the stereotypes of kilts and haggis, teas and beefeaters, dragons and celts I think you'll find its wrong to use the names 'England', 'Scotland' or 'Wales' as catch-all terms for states.
As much as I love the various cultures I think it's a shame that the United Kingdom is derided on all sides. Just because an individual proton is part of an atom doesn't make it any less of a proton. You can be both English and British, Scottish and British, Welsh and British, and British and European. You don't have to limit yourself to one culture, why would you want to? Just look at Americans: they've managed to maintain great individual cultures while at the same time making the broader 'American' culture. A lot of crap is said about American culture, some of it with reason, but it's also produced the best authors, filmmakers and artists of the past century. Texas was once an independant state, and has it's own individual culture, but they're also Americans, and feel no shame in saying so.
So anyway, to resume what I've just ranted about, I agree with markintellect: it's Britain, not England.
1
