Just out of interest .I cant really remember the football situation from previous olympics but it seems as this one is bein held in uk that the football situation is bein taken a bit more seriousley ie bigger names looking for selection . I would like to go back to the idea of having one national team which i know causes outrage amongst some , but lets just say GB won the football with a far better team made up from the very best of the home nations . Does anyone think it will raise the arguments for and against again . IMO I think its best from a purely football point of view but wouldn't go down well with the traditionalists . personally wouldn't be to fussed . thoughts
To be honest Dundee there will be a lot of token players selected. Gareth Bale, Aaron Ramsey, Ryan Giggs and Craig Bellamy are probably the only ones who would get in the England team at the moment. Maybe Charlie Adam would've a year ago but he's hardly setting the world alight now. Ryan Stephenson can't even get in the Ipswich side That all said it'll be a great bit of fun. Permanently though there would be too much politics and bad will. Can you imagine the outrage when the manager selects an all English XI? We can get away with it for novelty value at the Olympics when we can throw in token Irish and Scots but not for serious internationals and tournaments.
If you wikipedia the history Dundee it's all pretty interesting. We had a GB team at the Olympics until 1960, didn't qualify for the next three and then haven't entered from 1972 until this time. It was amateurs only until 1984 and then players who had played in a World Cup were not allowed, so it's only since the Barcelona Olympics in '92 that we've had this current system. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland didn't and don't want us to compete.
Well maybe it's partly because who we are is a complete myth San Diego? The native English have exactly the same genes as the celts. Our country is the product of all sorts of shennanigans over the last 2000 years. Is there any reason why I shouldn't be proud to be British?
In fact, I'm proud to be from Ipswich, proud to be from Suffolk, proud to be from England, proud to be from Britain, proud to be European and proud to be on planet Earth.
With me living here in the states I get called British all the time. It is slightly annoying because americans in general only call the english 'british'. People from Scotland get called scottish etc so I am always quick to point out that I am English, and not British. Petty as it may seem I am proud to be English, and not a generic British. The other home nations don't like to be called british, or have anything to do with seeing Great Britain as a country or unified nations so to speak so I don't see why I can't be the same.
I'm not quite sure where you get that from. Politically I know the Welsh are very happy to be able to have their own laws and spend their money how they wish, there are wars fought over whether nations are part of Britain or not but i think you'll find most people will see the red white and blue on the Olympians outfits and will them to the finish line. We are competing against China and the USA, they have their own regions and peoples with a lot less in common than Britain so I don't see the difference.
Well most English fans have been happy to cheer on a Swede and an Italian so i can't see how they could object really.
I’m not sure San Diego was saying you shouldn’t be proud to be British, rather than the “Celts” are openly proud of their “nations” while the English are less vocal about this. Though SD will correct me if I’m wrong. As for “Well maybe it's partly because who we are is a complete myth San Diego?” I’m not sure what you mean by “we”. Whose national identity isn’t a myth? The reason why the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh (and pretty much everyone) have the national identities that they do is largely based on myths, missrepresentations and lies. Such is the stuff of history. See famous Irish historian RF Foster’s book “The Irish Story: Telling Tales and Making it Up in Ireland” for but one example. Their national self-perception was transformed from roughly mid-renaissance times, for reasons that were largely bollocks. All three “Celtic” “nations” have propagated this victim complex in their relationship to England to get away with murder in terms of how they present themselves to the world. That’s one reason why the English can’t be so vocal – no victim complex to fall back on. Then there’s the patronising PC view that we beat up on so many people in recent centuries – the idea here that the rest of the world are the Rousseuvian “noble savage” and as such we exploited our brilliance. That just highlights the inherent racism of PC handwringers, rather that their grasp of the obvious that England had to compete in the Realpolitik of the day, not to mention their ignorance of the what other European powers were getting up to. “The native English have exactly the same genes as the celts.” Indeed, in that similar percentages of what you might term “celtic” dna (by which I mean pre-Roman) is more or less equally present all over Britain and Ireland (roughly 79ish%). Genetics has revealed that the myth propagated that the Welsh, Irish and Scots were “pure Celts” and the English an evil mix of Anglo-Saxons and assorted reprobates is just that - a myth. In addition to genetics, modern archaeological and historical methods reveal the increase in population pre WW2 were internal; that immigrations have been largely peaceful, small and integrated with the dominant existing culture.,As such, our only mass immigrations and notions of “multiculturalism” (IE, the idea that only the indigenous set of cultural norms, legal system etc should take precedence is incorrect) is a post war thing. The only myths being exploded are PC ones, but say it very quietly – you could get yourself locked up it you say if outside of college halls.
