This could explain an awful lot….and give an insight into not only Mark Easton’s mind but that of many of his colleagues so often reluctant to wave the flag…from 2008:
I recently filled out a form for a visa that asked me my nationality. The choices were English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or Other. I didn’t want to be an “other” but the options were forcing me to pick. So in the end ‘other’ it was.
I was born in a small detached house on what was then a new estate on the edge of Glasgow in 1959, first child of four. At the age of 10 my parents upped sticks and we all moved to a little village near Winchester in Hampshire. At the local primary school, my Scots accent was quickly knocked out of me and I was left dazed and confused.
My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.
Ancient Irish and Welsh ancestry mix with Scots roots and English upbringing. The whole I regard as 100% British.
Being British is not “other”. It is me.
From that you might gather that he thinks there is no such thing as ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ or indeed any notion of nationality……preferring the borderless ‘Britain’ and in preferrence to that, if asked, probably ‘European’, and if asked again, a ‘Citizen of the world’.
Which all fits snugly with the BBC’s determination that we are a nation of immigrants and ‘Englishness’ is a relative, almost meaningless term…..echoing what Muslim ‘conservatives’ like the once head of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie, said….‘no other language or culture should be treated as the ‘norm’ and that the British should only be treated as one community in a community of communities.’
For ‘Britain’ perhaps the BBC would like to use ‘Caliphate’ instead.
“Thus from a mixture of all kinds began, that het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman.”
Daniel Defoe’s poem, The True-Born Englishman, reflects how many see England – a “mongrel” nation forged from Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes and Normans.
Successive waves of immigration in the 20th Century have given rise to the notion that England is unique in its composition, a mixture of all things good from all countries.
However they were disabused of this by Peter Mandler, professor of modern cultural history at the University of Cambridge, who said this view of English roots is simply wrong :
“The English are no more mongrel than any other European country – it’s a story that people tell themselves, but it doesn’t describe the country.”
“My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.”
As a descendant of Jutes, I’d like to make it very clear that no Jute would have ever done the deed with the ancestral pondlife which must make up the Easton family tree. Not even under pain of death.
Descendants of ‘Picts, Saxons, Celts’ etc might like equally to disassociate their tribal ancestors Mr Precious’s foul and disgusting slur upon them.
Easton is so full of guilt – enhanced by a folk tale about his Scots accent being knocked out of him at school. Hard to believe, although he does, and we suffer.
Probably nowt to do with his accent and everything to do with being a smug, self-satisfied, superior little twat.
‘My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.’
No there isn’t, you ignorant BBC multi-culti ‘we’re a nation of immigrants’ obsessive.
If M.E. is reading this now , just Go Forth & Multiply to some Hideously non white country , where you obviously belong ,you traitor . And “Come the Revolution ” your name is already top of the list.
There’s probably a smidgen of Gallus gallus domesticus in Easton’s bloodline too.
“From that you might gather that he thinks there is no such thing as ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ or indeed any notion of nationality”
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. He is talking about his personal circumstances causing him to define himself as British, rather than English or Scottish. Nowhere here does he say there is no such thing as English or Scottish, nor would he object to anyone else describing themselves as such.
And the quote from Professor Peter Mandler is surely evidence that that article is balanced, ie. it gives both points of view?
Why is he ashamed to declare himself Scottish ? That is what most people would do.
I imagine it’s because declaring himself Scottish would, in his view, not be a fully accurate description of himself, given that he’s lived by far the majority of his life in England.
But it sounds as though his family was Scottish, and he was born and had his formative years in Scotland. There is nothing wrong with being a Scot in England. Moving south does not change his nationality.
Or is he just snobbishly and spinelessly ashamed of coming from Glasgow ?
No wonder he argues that the rest of us need to junk our pride in our national origins.
I don’t think he’s ashamed to have Scottish roots, merely that to describe himself as Scottish isn’t fully accurate. Becoming an adult in England, living your entire adult life in England, having children in England (he has 4) are clearly factors that for him decrease his Scottishness and increase his Englishness.
I don’t see why describing yourself as British has to be in contradiction with describing yourself as English, Scottish or Welsh.
‘I don’t think he’s ashamed to have Scottish roots’
Of course he’s ashamed to acknowledge any sense of national belonging – his lily liberal no nation but the world sentiment comes over very clearly in all that agonising of his – it’s just not normal – ask a normal person, they don’t flounder about in that odd way when asked their nationality. His confusion is deliberate, it is political and it shows his real sense of allegiance to the international left – what else would we expect of a BBC man through and through.
He describes himself as 100% British. How does that fit with ‘no nation but the world’, as you say?
How do you know his confusion is deliberate? He says he was confused at school having had his Scottish accent knocked out – was he at that young age deliberately thinking along leftist, internationalist lines?
There’s nothing wrong with considering yourself both British and Scottish, British but not Scottish, or Scottish but not British. I myself would say I’m both English and British, and am proud to be both.
My comment stands. His supposedly being ‘British’ amounts to no more than a passport possession fact. How can you claim his confusion is not ‘deliberate’. His claim for ‘mongrel’ ethnicity, his claim that his schooling knocked his accent out of him – poor boy : these are obviously political pleas of the Left.
You’re an idiot. There are plenty of us who for perfectly good reasons cannot identify as English, Scottish, Welsh etc but feel ourselves to be fiercely British. In my case it’s because I have Scottish, Welsh and English grandparents. I grew up in England so feel more English, but because that doesn’t adequately describe who I am, I prefer to call myself British. I have friends who were born in Wales but grew up in England and are uncomfortable being called either Welsh or English. Try to see beyond your prejudices, have some respect for the preferences and circumstances of other people, and stop behaving like a stereotypical bigot.
As interesting as your views on your identity may be – and good luck to you Mr Jastathought – we are here discussing Mr Easton’s flounderingly arch-liberal response to his natrional identity. By the way I’m not an idiot. My early schooling knock that out of me.
Remember Jim Dandy? ‘You’re an idiot’ is straight out of his handbook of killer arguments.
Again – he says that being British is ‘100% me’. I think that means his Britishness is far more to him than simply holding a British passport.
How can you claim his confusion is deliberate? It’s entirely natural, given his life story, to be a little confused as to whether he’s English, Scottish, or British.
I don’t see how you can dismiss his story of his accent being knocked out of him – how can you possibly know it’s not true?
‘My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.’
That’s his definition of ‘British’. He’ll be more than delighted that in 50 or so years time he will be able to add Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somalian, Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian and a whole host of others to his ‘mongrel’ definition of British whether or not there has been any assimilation of those populations.
And remember, Easton has loads of form on this. He is the embodiment of BBC insidiousness.
johnnythefish has it right. Context is everything here and Easton has form stretching back years.
If his wife is English, and given that his children were born and have been brought up in England – the children would seem to rank as English. (but with some Scottish blood).
But for Easton himself, if he was born Scottish, moving south at age 10 does not really make him English. British is OK for him, yes. But many would hold to their Scottish identity.
Take Andrew Neil – similar age, both born in Glasgow, both spent their professional lives in Eng;land. I bet Neil does not call himself English – he may call himself British but he seems just as likely to regard himself as Scottish and properly proud of it.
You can play rugby or football for Scotland if your great grandmother once kissed a Scotsman, let alone going any further. So being born in Scotland must make you Scottish surely!
Speaking for myself I am 100% with Easton. I was born in England and lived most my life in Scotland. I am British not English or Scottish and always will be. Others are free to choose differently. Ethnically I am Anglo-Welsh-Scots.
I am English. That is all that I need to say. I would still be English if I had lived most of my life in any other land. My father and his father and his father back and back through the centuries would understand this simple thing. My maternal grandfather was born in Chile but the place meant nothing .He was still English through and through.
It is part of me and it is also part of my sons and grandsons. Wherever they may live they will carry this with them and never forget from whence they came.
We, in my family, as in millions of other English families have never wavered in our love for and loyalty to our country.
Our names on on the war memorials of England. I like to think we never liked the Normans very much.
We do not need these pathetic creatures like Easton to inflict their liberal agonising on us.
As for being British. It is just a word on a passport.
The English know who they are . Easton will never be one of us and that is a blessing.
If I was ME I would be ashamed to put my real name on the form
I am often highly critical of ‘Labour’s’ Mark Easton, but in this case, I agree with him. Since he has links to more than one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, then surely he right to be reluctant to choose one above another. He is Scottish by birth and English by domicile. He was presented with an impossible choice!
My nephew, who was born near Edinburgh, with a Scottish father and English mother, and although they moved to Hampshire when he was about 5 years old, still calls himself Scottish. And he was considered a Scottish competitor when he took part in the Olympic handball competition for TeamGB in 2012.
Similarly with me, my father was Austrian and my mother English born. I consider myself English (albeit proud of my Austrian connections too). If I had been born and brought up over there, with the same parents, I would probably have called myself Austrian. But if both my parents had been Austrian, and I had been born in England, it would have made me a bit unsure of my nationality.
Being English or Scottish is partly parentage but mainly where you were born. Being British is only a passport accident which will soon be rectified, I hope.
How difficult it must be to be an angst ridden lefty. What would normally take a mere mortal just a moment to complete, fills one of these precious beings with self loathing and guilt. I wonder if the person who received the form actually gave it a second though. I doubt it, so why write an article on the subject?
I think the clue is in the name, England, land of the Angles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles
Bit like the football team eligibility – born there, from there. End of story.
Like the England Football team or as I like to call it the Nigerian B team. The good news is there’s still two African teams left in the World Cup, France and Holland !!
I saw the Greek and Japanese football teams and I was shocked, they were all ethnic Greek and ethnic Japanese.
‘Italian’ Football player Mario Balotelli, if he’s Italian then I’m a Dutchman.
sportinglife.aol.co.uk/football/news/article/22882/7573994/balotelli-i-have-grown-up
‘My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.’
There’s Easton’s agenda in a nutshell, craftily inserted (as with many his broadcasts) into what appears to be a bit of personal agonising over his Scots/English identity conflict.
It’s totally unambiguous and I’m amazed so many on here have missed it. And, by the way, it’s a wild over-simplification of our genealogical mix that is just plain wrong.
‘German’ tennis player Dustin Brown, love the hair.
http://www.rtbf.be/sport/tennis-direct/joueur/35160/dustin-brown/calendrier
What makes a particular nation great? There are two extreme fallacies: 1) the genetic purity of the group (so very 19th century) and 2)The genetic diversity of the group (very 21st century).
The truth is that good ideas maketh the nation. What made the descendents of the old English, Danes and then Normans accept the ideas that led to Magna Carta and then the Glorious Revolution?
It wasn’t because of their ethnicity and it wasn’t because they inherited the genes from dozens of different groups either.
In the UK we have inherited a great set of ideas and we want to ensure they are not replaced by the bad ideas, such as Sharia, that do coincidentally derive from the thinking of ethnic groups that differ from most of us. That isn’t racism, that is just a morally sensible thing to be concerned about.
‘I recently filled out a form for a visa that asked me my nationality. The choices were English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or Other’
Had a quick scope, but as I can’t see it anywhere does anyone have a clue where this visa was for?
He doesn’t say.
In all my travels I have known the UK & GB to be juggled by foreign authorities, and often England conflated with both, but don’t ever recall any country having the slightest concern which part of our fair isles we are arriving from.
Though if he’s from the BBC a few may be legitimately concerned what narrative he would be enhancing about national threats whilst enjoying their protection in reporting so ‘uniquely’ as a guest.
Maybe he was applying to visit BBC complaints?
They appear to want to know if you are from:
England
NI
Scotland
Wales
Outside the UK
Looks familiar.
Quite why they need to know that when all that matters is the target, accuracy and validity of the complaint, who knows?
‘This helps us identify which of our services you are receiving’ is, essentially irrelevant, but just as they like keeping things their little secret, they do like to know where folk live.
Eh, probably because there are regional opt outs. Or its a conspiracy. One of the two.
‘…don’t ever recall any country having the slightest concern which part of our fair isles we are arriving from.’
A good thought there and I have to agee with that – why would an overseas nation issuing Mr Easton his supposed Visa have any interest beyond his UK passport/citizenship? I smell a rat. Perhaps one of our friends of Mr Easton with such complex and interesting regional backgrounds would like to comement?
Re-reading the quote I see that Mr Easton says only that he was asked his nationality – the choices English/Scots/Welsh etc may well have been aborrations of his own thought process to arrive – oddly enough – at the perfectly obvious answer ‘British’ ie ‘UK citizen/passport holder’ The rest is just showbiz with a strong BBC liberal lefty flavour.
Of course fellow Beeboid and 5 Live Salford stalwart and survivor Tony Livesy would have simply answered : ‘English : by default’
‘the choices English/Scots/Welsh etc may well have been aborrations of his own thought process to arrive – oddly enough – at the perfectly obvious answer ‘British’’
Indeed. It being a British Passport from that place with a world-[insert verb here] Broadcasting Corporation.
I do confess that the possibility he had concocted these options in his own head had not occurred to me.
Especially as who, in their right mind, would include ‘Other’ as their identity crisis rages in the immigration queue?
Re-reading myself, and trying to be fair, I am pretty sure he seems to be saying ‘British’ was not an option.
So I remain curious why, and from where.
Agree with all of the above. At no time, in all of my many travels and Visa applications, can I recall that anyone has been in the slightest concerned about any aspect of my nationality beyond ‘British’ or ‘UK’ as origin of my passport. I do recall being asked about the city of issue of the passport, but nothing specifically more ‘granular’ on the nationality front .
In fact, in just a few moments, I have checked all my recent Visa applications and, most applications are online, only offering a drop-down menu choice which included UK, and not any of its constituent parts.
Perhaps Mr E would enlighten us as to which part of the world cares which part of the UK he comes from ? Or has he just created a fantasy for himself just to be contentious. Such is the standard, I guess, of BBC reportage these days.
I have to agree – I have filled out visa applications for Nigeria, Algeria, Yemen, Kazakhstan and Vietnam in which I defined my nationality as British – never one of the constituent nations of the UK. I note that Mr Easton doesn’t tell us which country apparently required such detail. This story smells a bit.
Most of Easton;s stories smell a bit. Correction – smell a lot.
If an “English” option were available, I would have taken it.
I’m English by birth, British by an Act of Parliament
If Easton is unable to call himself English or any of the other choices then it make a description of any immigrant as ‘English’ equally if not even more wrong!
By his own logic an English Pakistani is an impossibility !
I’ve told you before Alan to have someone read of this guff before you publish.
‘From that you might gather that he thinks there is no such thing as ‘English’ or ‘Scottish’ or indeed any notion of nationality……preferring the borderless ‘Britain’.
Eh, I think if you read it he’s saying he was born in Scotland, raised in England and face with the choice would’ve preferred Britian. That’ll be another post down in flames.
And still nopthing to do with a caliphate.
It is an interesting angle that I find relatable. I myself am an Ulster man. My daughter was born here but we moved to Norfolk when she was one. Her mother and I have since parted ways and she spends term time in England and holidays in N.I. Being a mere 11 years of age I don’t think she concerns herself too much with her national identity. When she reaches the age of majority she can decide for herself with my blessing. She currently has dual nationality in passport terms but as long as she is happy and healthy, it concerns me not a jot. Just my tuppence.
Test
‘My veins, so the genealogy would have it, course with mongrel blood. Saxon, Pict, Jute, and Celt almost certainly. And there’s bound to be extract of Roman, Norman and Viking in there too.’
There’s Easton.
There’s bias (of the multi-culti, ‘we’re a nation of immigrants’ variety).
He got form. He got agenda. See his rambling obfuscation on British ‘values’ posted by Alan a few weeks ago (conclusion: we can’t define them).
Be he English,Scottish,Welsh,Irish,Viking or whatever.
he’s still a tosser in my eyes.