New Order: English or British?

To some people it may not matter (certainly you yanks who think England is Britain), but having just read an Australian music site that did a review of music in 1987 it made my blood boil to see New Order (True Faith) and The Proclaimers (some jock crap song) classed as from the same country!!! Plus I don't think "we are singing for Britain" as quite the same ring!

Eng ur land!

I think the little country or region or whatever the hell you consider England is just part of the UK (that is, Britain), and whatever antagonisms you may have between the other bits and pieces of your eroded empire don't mean a thing to me. Some bands I'd classify as distinctly Scottish (like The Exploited) and some as distinctly Irish (like Stiff Little Fingers), but New Order seem plenty English to me. So when I refer to Britain and New Order as a British band, I really mean England, to be totally proper--but since I'm usually addressing that info to someone else from the States (who likewise doesn't share the sort of "colonized by wankers" regional pride you have over there), I refer to the whole area as Britain, because there's no reason to dice that whole tiny bunch of islands into little bits.

I'll support you in slagging the Proclaimers anytime, 'cos they're Hibees !

Seriously though, there are four different countries in the UK and although they are all British, the people from each one of countries are proud to be what they are, whether it is English, Scottish or the others. Nothing wrong with that ! There's one significant factor though: the smaller countries will always gang up against the English. I remember spending an afternoon watching the Rugby where the Scots beat the Welsh something rotten but the atmosphere remained super at all times. There must have been as many Scots as Welsh there but no bother at all. Had the opposition been English I'm sure it would have been different. The Irish and the Scots get on great as well.

My other half will always slag the English as a standard joke, but some of his best mates are English so it doesn't go that deep.

However, call him English and he turns a lovely shade of different colours !

Their passports will tell you that they are British. State of the Nation was a Scottish record though

Historically, the English have treated the Welsh, Irish, and Scots like shit. This is mostly forgotten apart from the times, as Geri notes above, when we're playing sport against each other. Culturally, we all have very different roots, too, and although, musically, these roots have mostly been ameliorated (both within the UK and Internationally), it's very difficult for me as an English man to imagine New Order as coming from anywhere but England, and in fact, speaking as a Southern git, I can't imagine them as having come from anywhere else but the North of England.

They're English, aren't they? It's pretty obvious. But don't start on the excellent Proclaimers, they piss all over the great majority of English bands.

Originally posted by Spotnick Been there, done that...Is Quebec a part of Canada or not? Seriously, I have no idea what is the difference between England and UK, but it always seemed to be that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are like "provinces" of England, and together they are called United Kingdom,

Oh, no no no...don't ever make that mistake again!

The difference between England and the UK is exactly the same as the difference between Scotland and the UK - they are both constituent kingdoms. England just happens to be bigger.

Hence England isn't the same thing as "the UK" any more than Scotland is.

The British were Celtic; The English were Germanic invaders-- Angles, Saxons, and Jutes-- and pushed the British almost off the island. The Welsh and the Cornish are whats's left of "Britain."

Wales and Scotland are not "provinces" of England. Nor is Ireland-- "Northern" Ireland is just a bit of left-over English imperialism that's taken on a life of its own. They were separate nations, now united under a common monarch. That's why it's the "United Kingdom."

Great Britain, as far as I can tell, refers to the British empire.

The Scottish and the Welsh still have a separate national identity, but by now, the old ethnic distinctions in England itself, vis-a-vis British/English/Norman, must have blurred quite a bit.

Originally posted by Lee Curzon To some people it may not matter (certainly you yanks who think England is Britain), but having just read an Australian music site that did a review of music in 1987 it made my blood boil to see New Order (True Faith) and The Proclaimers (some jock crap song) classed as from the same country!!! Plus I don't think "we are singing for Britain" as quite the same ring!

oh for f**ks sake ! england is england wales is wales scotland is scotland northern ireland is northern ireland ireland is ireland they are all collectively known as britain or the united kingdom! hence the queen is head of state in the above countries (oz & nz too!) dont you understand you silly yanks? do we call the usa canada? i think not ! yes some people do have regional pride etc,but we dont shout britain when england arec playing do we? you yanks dont understand cos your shit at football anyway! god who started this topic anyway? we must be really bloody desperate if we are talking shit like this! maybe we should have a slag of yanks topic and a slag of english topic!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no wonder i"m

Originally posted by nuts god who started this topic anyway?

a brit

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope I think the little country or region or whatever the hell you consider England is just part of the UK (that is, Britain), and whatever antagonisms you may have between the other bits and pieces of your eroded empire don't mean a thing to me. Some bands I'd classify as distinctly Scottish (like The Exploited) and some as distinctly Irish (like Stiff Little Fingers), but New Order seem plenty English to me. So when I refer to Britain and New Order as a British band, I really mean England, to be totally proper--but since I'm usually addressing that info to someone else from the States (who likewise doesn't share the sort of "colonized by wankers" regional pride you have over there), I refer to the whole area as Britain, because there's no reason to dice that whole tiny bunch of islands into little bits.

oh dear david, bit patronising that! so using your "argument" what's the point of cutting up America into north america, Canada, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil etc?

there is every reason to do it - its because they are different countries, with different flags, national anthems etc.

Originally posted by devastating dave oh dear david, bit patronising that!so using your "argument" what's the point of cutting up America into north america, Canada, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil etc?

I didn't know that England was the same size as the American continents ; California itself is quite a bit larger than tiny England, and I would not ask you to distinguish between Northern Californians, Southern Californians; better yet splitting the Valley people, downtown people of LA. The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, that's it period.

They wish they were a german band.;)

Originally posted by Server Error in "/" Application They wish they were a german band.;)

If they were a French band, then I bet the brits would feel even better

I never could understand why you "Brits" call us "Yanks." I am not a yank!! What in the hell is one?? My Dad doesn't even do that as when he gets mad he just says, "Those bloody Americans!!!" Please, someone enlighten me.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by devastating dave> > > oh dear david, bit patronising that!> so using your "argument" what's the point of cutting up America into north america, Canada, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil etc?>

I didn't know that England was the same size as the American continents ; California itself is quite a bit larger than tiny England, and I would not ask you to distinguish between Northern Californians, Southern Californians; better yet splitting the Valley people, downtown people of LA. The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, that's it period.

You're confusing the nation-state with the ethnic nationalities.

Originally posted by Dark Angel I never could understand why you "Brits" call us "Yanks." I am not a yank!! What in the hell is one?? My Dad doesn't even do that as when he gets mad he just says, "Those bloody Americans!!!" Please, someone enlighten me.

Here's one explanation

Here's a slightly different explanation

And finally...: "But over the years, the English, or "Yangeese" as the local Indians called them, thrived as more settlers moved to the colonies and built up houses and towns, even shipping in their cattle and setting up fences for pasture lands. Gradually the Indians came to resent the colonists who crowded in on the wilderness, driving away the Indians' wild game, and brought cattle that trampled the Indians' corn crops. "

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by devastating dave> > > oh dear david, bit patronising that!> so using your "argument" what's the point of cutting up America into north america, Canada, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil etc?>

I didn't know that England was the same size as the American continents ; California itself is quite a bit larger than tiny England, and I would not ask you to distinguish between Northern Californians, Southern Californians; better yet splitting the Valley people, downtown people of LA. The United Kingdom is the United Kingdom, that's it period.

You're confusing the nation-state with the ethnic nationalities. um... both regions in CA have much different populations, with the South containing far more Hispanics; the issue here is culture more than anything else, and there are many splits of culture that could be made in CA, which are not done so because they are silly

California was never a nation-state. "Californian" does not describe an ethnic-nationality.

Scotland was a nation-state, as well as an ethnic nationality distinct from that of England. They had/have a separate language. (The Scots were actually Irish tribes who settled in what is now Scotland. The inhabitants of Scotland before the Scots were the Picts, who like the Britons inhabitating what is now England, were Celtic; the Irish and the Scots were Gaelic Celts.)They had a separate monarchy until the 17th century.

Wales was also a nation-state, with an ethnic nationality and language distinct from that of England.

Devastating's point regarding the divisions of the American continents was well-taken. It's just plain mistaken to compare the ethnic and political situation of the United Kingdom with California.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr California was never a nation-state. "Californian" does not describe an ethnic-nationality. Scotland was a nation-state, as well as an ethnic nationality distinct from that of England. They had/have a separate language. (The Scots were actually Irish tribes who settled in what is now Scotland. The inhabitants of Scotland before the Scots were the Picts, who like the Britons inhabitating what is now England, were Celtic; the Irish and the Scots were Gaelic Celts.)They had a separate monarchy until the 17th century.Wales was also a nation-state, with an ethnic nationality and language distinct from that of England.Devastating's point regarding the divisions of the American continents was well-taken. It's just plain mistaken to compare the ethnic and political situation of the United Kingdom with California.

sorry about my hyperbole, but wasn't California Mexican before??? Isn't there a clash of cultures here between whites, hispanics, asians, and african-americans. I was exaggerating with CA, but I am just saying that the dividing such a miniscule amount of land is pointless, especially when the cultures of each region is not so strong anymore with the amount of immigration each region has endured.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> California was never a nation-state. "Californian" does not describe an ethnic-nationality. > > Scotland was a nation-state, as well as an ethnic nationality distinct from that of England. They had/have a separate language. (The Scots were actually Irish tribes who settled in what is now Scotland. The inhabitants of Scotland before the Scots were the Picts, who like the Britons inhabitating what is now England, were Celtic; the Irish and the Scots were Gaelic Celts.)They had a separate monarchy until the 17th century.> > Wales was also a nation-state, with an ethnic nationality and language distinct from that of England.> > Devastating's point regarding the divisions of the American continents was well-taken. It's just plain mistaken to compare the ethnic and political situation of the United Kingdom with California.

sorry about my hyperbole, but wasn't California Mexican before??? Isn't there a clash of cultures here between whites, hispanics, asians, and african-americans. I was exaggerating with CA, but I am just saying that the dividing such a miniscule amount of land is pointless, especially when the cultures of each region is not so strong anymore with the amount of immigration each region has endured.

Don't get me started on why Mexico's claim to California is such BS.

Nevertheless, I understand what you're saying, but Devastating Dave is still right regarding the UK. It's three distinct nations, albeit united under a common monarch, just as North America is three separate nations. And who knows, the UK may yet become three separate nations again.

National identity is eternal, countries are often just political conventions, often against the will of most of the nations involved. Been there.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by Server Error in "/" Application> They wish they were a german band.;)

If they were a French band, then I bet the brits would feel even better are you taking the piss? us english do not like the french they are arrogant filthy peasant farmers! when they can get what they want from their own government,they stage massive general strikes blocking off routes inside paris and the ferry ports .and as a very large percentage of the people who use the ferries are english ,then yoyu can see why the english people dont like them! and they refused to help bush & blair by going into iraq to find that tyrant saddam hussein . gutless bastards! if it wasnt for our two great countries england and america they would all be speaking german by now! p.s just like to point out that we do like french canadians! jack villeneuve could be better than schumacher if he was given the right car again! but dont get me started on germans! i dont think joy division actually wanted to be like germans,it was just at that time ibn the 70"s everyone wanted to shock people,and by using nazi imagery in videos and remarks etc. look at other bands of the time.they"ve all done it!

Nice to see the Americans don't know the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom!

We like our regionalism round these parts, so the Order aren't just 'Northern' but specifically Manc - few people from, say, Leeds or Liverpool or Newcastle would like to be lumped in with the others as homogenously 'northern'. I'm sure it all seems a bit puerile to non-UK dwellers, but regional identity tends to overshadow all others (except maybe when the World Cup comes round, or if we're abroad).

I'm not going to get dragged into the UK vs US baiting that crops up here on a semi-regular basis, but I'll be in Noo Yoik City in a few weeks time, so if (given the current warnings) I get flown into a building or blown up with a shoe or gassed on the subway I BLAME YOU YANKS!!!!

Mancs? I thought they were from Salford...