Bridget Jones, or the Anti-Portuguese prejudice

[Mouguias]

Have you read "Bridget Jones`Diary?" It`s a lousy book, but the funny thing is, in the last pages, it deals quite a lot about Portugal and the Portuguese people. Bridget`s mother cheats her husband with a Portuguese lover and spends some time in Portugal. The book doesn`t waste any occasion to depict the Portuguese character as a stupid, brainless "macho". As to Portugal itself, is is supposedly an underdeveloped country, seized by corruption and unefficiency of any sort.
You know what? I am happy you can still read this sort of things, from time to time. I am happy that "Political Correctness" still doesn`t prevent racists to say what they believe.
It is good to see, without the least censorship, the stupid ignorance and groundless contempt towards "Euro-Africans", that still thrives in those endless towns of middle-class terraced houses in England.
It`s like "The Lord of the Rings", they see the world as a small, boring, stupid village full of brainless gardeners which don`t have anything to do but watering their cucumbers, smoking and gossiping all day. As soon as you cross the bridge of the Brandiwine, good Lord, you have left the limits of civilization and might get involved with olive-skinned sub-humans, which will betray you at the first occasion.
The funny thing is, in the days of Tolkien it was all OK, because Great Britain was the ruling power and they could define what was "civilized" and what was "savagery". But today, my God, they are just as narrow-minded but nobody cares what they think or say! Poor, stupid, little Great Britain.

[alex221166]

Mouguias said:

Have you read "Bridget Jones`Diary?"

"Bridget Jones' Diary" is - like Sex in the City - a book/film directed at a female audience of 30-45 year old frustrated women who are single against their will, but who are still trying to convince themselves that

a) they can still find prince Charming

b) if by any chance prince Charming moved to another city after their last date, they still have their female friends to rely on

Yes, a few Portuguese men are uncivilized grunts, but this much I can tell you:

a) the "gruntish" types seem to be the ones that score the most amongst the British female tourists (illiterate fishermen always get top marks for some reason...)

b) our "gruntish" illiterate types don't go to Britain, and repeatedly abuse British hospitality and make a fool of themselves while being filmed during a European Championship

By the way, this was on the BBCNews site today:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3892775.stm

Shaved head woman tells of ordeal

A woman whose hair was shaved off after she rejected the advances of two Scottish holidaymakers has spoken of her trauma.
Craig McMillan, 19, and Liam Owens, 21, crept into Georgina Ludden's room as she slept after a drunken night out in Faliraki, Rhodes.

The 20-year-old, from Maidstone, Kent, woke up to find the shorn blonde hair all over her pillow.(...)

Nuff said.

[nobody you know]

when i hear about our football hooligans i feel ashamed to be british

[Cerdic]

Didn't we help to take Lisbon from the Moors? Wasn't the first bishop of Lisbon English (Bishop Gilbert)?

Didn't we attempt to help you shake off Spanish domination at least twice?

Not to mention Napoleon.

More recently was it not Britain who pressed for the incorporation of Portugal in the EU, when countries like France and Italy were lukewarm at best?

In my experience Portugal and the Portuguese are regarded very favourably by those of my countrymen who know anything of them. There are, of course, ingnorant and prejudiced people in Britain as everywhere, but they are in a minority.

You have reacted to a piece of crass stereotyping (though this was within a self-confessed comedy) by replying with another set of crass stereotypes. For example, the British are Tolkeinesque narrow-minded bucolic types? Well no, Britain is the most urbanised nation in Europe, it has the most cosmopolitan culture - do have a go at comparing London and Lisbon. It produces the only European popular music and fashion worth a damn. As to intellectual life, well it has produced the second highest number of Nobel laureates, this after America which has a population more than five times as great.

To use an English sporting term, any Portuguese criticising the English/British is on a sticky wicket, there is a whole shed-load of historical baggage we can call upon. Portugal has made use of British aggressive abilities, and we are bonnie fighters, too many times in the past in order to acheive its own goals to be very precious about seeing a little of it misdirected. Not that I condone hooliganism in any form.

[alex221166]

Didn't we help to take Lisbon from the Moors? Wasn't the first bishop of Lisbon English (Bishop Gilbert)?

Didn't we attempt to help you shake off Spanish domination at least twice?

Not to mention Napoleon.

Oh, indeed you did. Your "crusaders" were so bartbaric in their behaviour that king Dom Afonso Henriques was forced to threaten to leave them alone to do the siege on their own. Only the prospect of being abandoned in the middle of Moorland forced them to restrain themselves for a few months - until the city was conquered, and once again despite the failed attempts by king Dom Afonso to stop the crusaders from looting the city. The was the first time that Lisbon was looted by the English.

The second time happened when John of Gaunt sent an expeditionary force to help us against the Castillians during the 1383-1385 period. This expeditionary force was so "civilised", that our king Dom João I actually thought about shipping them back to England at our expense after hearing that English soldiers were raping and looting throughout Lisbon while their English commander watched.

From the XVI century to the XVII, there were several episodes that I recall for being so shocking amongst allies:

1) all the forts built throughout the Portuguese coast are a reminder of just how dangerous the English pirates were (remember that England was our faithful ally)

2) The failed Anglo-Dutch attempt to conquer Macao in 1622 (I don't give a damn about the Dutch, but once again, the English were supposedly our allies)

3) After the Restauration of Portuguese independance in 1640, Portugal asked England for reinforcements. In return, Portugal gave England such things as Tangiers, Bombay - which was the gateway for the British Empire in India -, a boatload of money, free trade in Brazil, the Portuguese princess Catherine of Bragança, and many many more things. The treaty was so rewarding, that the English themselves stated that they couldn't have done a better bargain. And rightly so, because of the reinforcements that England was expected to send, guess how many of them actually came? ZERO.

You also mentioned Napoleon. Yes, Napoleon... Let's see about that one. We were the only country in the whole of Europe that had the guts to stand by your side (even Russia signed a peace treaty in Tilsit) when Napoleon was at his finest hours. In 1807, we were finally invaded because despite our repeated requests for a few thousands of English grenadiers, the British sent ZERO. And so, we were invaded three times and defeated the French three times. When I say we, I say the Anglo-Portuguese army (which in case you don't know, had 3-4 Portuguese for every British soldier). Even mroe important than the army itself, was the Portuguese popular militia (the whole male population of Lisbon voluntered en masse to fight the French) not to mention the thousands of Portuguese that died charging French bayonets with nothing more than pikes and farm tools.

The Anglo-Portuguese army killed or defeated a total of 300.000 French in Portugal, Spain, and in France itself. Two thirds of their campaigns happened BEFORE the Russian Campaign. So please, don't mention Napoleon when we were only invaded because we stood by our allies, and when the Royal Navy actually helped the French taking the loot back to France after we had defeated them (make a web search on the Sintra Agreement).

But hey, screw the Sintra Agreement. It was nothing compared to what happened next. The English tried (and to a great extent they succeeded) to turn Portugal into an English colony. Brigadier-General Gomes Freire de Andrade, a hero of the Lusitanian Legion, was not even given a fair trial and was executed like a criminal for something he probably didn't even do.

Then we could move on to the English Ultimatum of 1890. Why don't you learn about that one? When the English actually sent warships to Lourenço Marques (aka Maputo) and threatened to blockade Lisbon? All that because we claimed lands that were actually ours... but hey, Cecil Rhodes would be pissed, so let's abuse our most loyal ally instead.

After that, maybe we could address the real reason why Portugal joined the 1st World War: that was simply the only way to prevent the English (or the Germans) from taking our colonies in Africa. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention how the English sponsored the Brazilian independance (fortunately Dom Pedro, the Brazilian Emperor, was smart enough to keep Brazil away from the British sphere).

More recently was it not Britain who pressed for the incorporation of Portugal in the EU, when countries like France and Italy were lukewarm at best?

The EU destroyed the Portuguese agriculture, fishing and textile industry. Furthermore, we buy a lot more than what we produce (and a lot of what we consume comes from Britain). Rest assured that you didn't want us in out of friendship, but because it benefitted you.

I judge the individual, not the country nor its past. I happen to know my country and its history, and I also have the ability to read in Portuguese, English, Castillian and French - which allows me to read different and varied sources.

Let me just give you an example: a few years ago, man United played in Oporto against FC Porto. After the match, English hooligans destroyed cars, shop windows, and terrorised a whole neighbourhood of the city. Enough is enough, and the military police gave them the beating they deserved. Now, in Britain the headlines were "Portuguese police abuse Britons" with a picture of a child crying in Heathrow airport. Not one mention to their behaviour prior to the police reaction.

The same thing happened during the Euro. Fortunately, at this time video cameras caught the whole scene (though I am sure that you in Britain didn't see a tenth of what we got to see in the Portuguese channels).

Let me just say this much to clear any doubts: I don't blame all Britons for the behaviour of a few hundreds or thousands of hooligans, neither do I blame any Briton for his country's past. However, please don't come with that "we bailed you out from Napoleon" when I read plenty about the Peninsular war and happened to know what actually happened (and not just "your" side, which is probably what you learn in your schools).

You helped us when it benefitted you. Diplomacy is not charity or "friendship", and anyone who thinks so is naive.

I live in Lisbon, and I have visited most of western Europe. Trust my words when I say that the only two other cities I would consider living in would be Paris or Barcelona, and still.... there is something in Lisbon that you won't find anywhere else. I don't expect you to understand this, but I really love my city.

As to music and fashion, I agree that when it comes to music the British are probably the most influent in the world (when it comes to fashion, France, Italy and America have most of the cards). However, to say that the only music and fashion worth giving a damn come from Britain is not only arrogance but ignorance.

[Cerdic]

No country's foreign policy is entirely, or even largely, altruistic, but Portugal has benefitted on many occasions from English or British alliance.

The English crusaders were diverted from going to Palestine by the Portuguese pointing out that they had infidels on their doorstep. That the English therefore treated the Lisbonites as enemies (they were mostly Berbers, Arabs and Mozarabs at the time, about half were Christian, but the Engish could hardly be expected to recognise the distinction), rather than liberated co-religionists is entirely understandable. The Portuguese would not have been able to interest the English in an attack on Lisbon without the inducement of plunder. The benefits to Portugal far outweighed any disadvantages.

I have written prize-winning articles on the military history of the Napoleonic era, so I know I thing or two about the Peninsular War.

The Portuguese made up roughly one third of the field armies put together by Wellington. If you count regular garrison troops, who were overwhelmingly Portuguese, plus the Portuguese Militia and Ordonenca (who were part-time troops) then there were more Portuguese than British. But, as I implied, the majority of the field army were British (or KGL). Once retrained and re-equipped by Britain the Portuguese army fought very well, particularly the many regiments of cacadores (apologies for lack of accent), who were invaluable, and described by Wellington as the "Fighting cocks of the army."

The three generals responsible for the Cintra Convention were court-martialled on their recall to Britain.

In the independance of Brasil, Cochrane was fighting as a mercenary and the major player was the King of Portugal (or was he regent at the time?) who thought that being the Emperor of an independant Brasil would be more attractive (you might rejoin that there was a lot of madness in the House of Braganca!).

I cannot read Portuguese, but I can read French, Latin and Anglo-Saxon so I'm not entirely restricted to views expressed in Modern English.

As to the EU, well you wanted to join! We only helped you in. Besides Portugal is a net beneficiary in financial terms from the EU. Before you joined you couldn't export vinho verde, so there are swings and roundabouts in every decision.

I remarked on popular music and popular fashion (not haute couture) and purely in relation to the rest of Europe. By popular fashion I mean the grass-roots stuff, Teddy Boys, Mods, Punks, New Romantics, Goths etc etc. The stuff that is on the streets of London for a couple of years before the fashion houses take notice of it.

I didn't imply that Lisbon wasn't a fine city or a good place to live, personally I dislike London, but London is a much more cosmopolitan city than Lisbon, or indeed any other European city.

[alex221166]

No country's foreign policy is entirely, or even largely, altruistic, but Portugal has benefitted on many occasions from English or British alliance.

British interference in Portuguese affairs (and our blind leadership always stay on Britains good side) was the main reason why we haven't been a leading world power since the late XVI century. The XIX century was particularly damaging, and it got to a point that the Portuguese royal family was murdered by republicans in 1908 (this was directly linked with the 1890 ultimatum). Do you know that the original lyrics of the "Portuguesa" (Portuguese anthem) had the words "Contra os Bretões marchar marchar!" (Against the Britons, march, march!). They changed later the word "Britons" for the word "Cannons".

The English crusaders were diverted from going to Palestine by the Portuguese pointing out that they had infidels on their doorstep. That the English therefore treated the Lisbonites as enemies (they were mostly Berbers, Arabs and Mozarabs at the time, about half were Christian, but the Engish could hardly be expected to recognise the distinction), rather than liberated co-religionists is entirely understandable. The Portuguese would not have been able to interest the English in an attack on Lisbon without the inducement of plunder. The benefits to Portugal far outweighed any disadvantages.

Wrong. The Portuguese king didn't want a destroyed city. In fact he offered to pay money to the crusaders so that they would leave the city in peace. The Muslims (over 20.000 of them) were allowed to leave to Alentejo or to the Algarve with what they could carry on their bodies when the city surrendered, so most of the barbarity was inflicted on the people that stayed in the city (Christians, Jews, and a Muslim minority who still wanted to stay).

I have written prize-winning articles on the military history of the Napoleonic era, so I know I thing or two about the Peninsular War.

The Portuguese made up roughly one third of the field armies put together by Wellington. If you count regular garrison troops, who were overwhelmingly Portuguese, plus the Portuguese Militia and Ordonenca (who were part-time troops) then there were more Portuguese than British. But, as I implied, the majority of the field army were British (or KGL). Once retrained and re-equipped by Britain the Portuguese army fought very well, particularly the many regiments of cacadores (apologies for lack of accent), who were invaluable, and described by Wellington as the "Fighting cocks of the army."

Well, I don't know where you got those numbers. Historian Mario Domingues presents completely different ones and I distinctly recall reading the 3-4 Portuguese for every Briton statistic. The Anglo Portuguese army had around 35.000 soldiers. Britain did not send 20.000-25.000 soldiers to Portugal. It was hard enough to convince them to send a few thousands, let a lone an army corps. In the city of Lisbon alone, some 60.000 males between the ages of 16-60 volunteered. The university of Coimbra was closed because all the students formed an academic battalion. So , no, there were not 2 Brits for every Portuguese. What you are probably trying to say is that Wellington tended to use in the major confrontations like Buçaco or Badajoz his most veteran units (mostly British or of the King's German Legion). However, the Peninsular war was not just about the major confrontations, but about the guerrilla warfare that kept killing some of Napoleon's best troops in ambushes.

The reason why the British were so eager to use Portuguese troops was exactly because they were much cheaper than the British. Although they did not have the training of the British veteran units, their performance was good enough to make the French believe that the British were using Portuguese uniforms for their own soldiers.

The three generals responsible for the Cintra Convention were court-martialled on their recall to Britain.

Good for Britain, but terrible for Portugal. Junot was allowed to leave with his Portuguese loot, and it stays - to this day - in French soil. I don't even want to think about what was plundered from our palaces.

In the independance of Brasil, Cochrane was fighting as a mercenary and the major player was the King of Portugal (or was he regent at the time?) who thought that being the Emperor of an independant Brasil would be more attractive (you might rejoin that there was a lot of madness in the House of Braganca!).

Hmmm, wrong again. Since you enjoy so much this period of our history, maybe you could research about the (successful) invasion of French Guiana by the Portuguese army in Brazil. We were forced to abandon the territory because of the... French? Nope. Because of the British, who didn't want us to get anything they might not want.

The prince regent Dom João VI was not mad. His move to leave to Brazil was actually a very intelligent one. It allowed him to keep the Portuguese independance (in Brazil) even though Portugal itself was invaded. The thing is, in Brazil, he was a lot less permeable to British interference than in Europe. When he was forced to return to Portugal, the only way he could avoid letting Brazil get into the British sphere was by granting the Brazilian independance and putting his own heir in the Brazilian imperial throne. Brazil was an empire because Brazil is large enough (and diverse enough) to be a continent on its own, not because of any delusional grandeur.

The mother of the regent became mad after a terrible nervous breakdown :she lost her husband, then most of her children, then there was the trial of the marquis de Pombal, and even though her reign was actually a good one (lots of new schools, science and art academies, reform of the navy and army etc) at one point she simply lost it. There was not "a lot of madness" in the House of Bragança. Your words are amazing, considering that the contemporary king of Britain was the "mad" king George III. Can I say that there was a lot of madness in the British royal family?

I cannot read Portuguese, but I can read French, Latin and Anglo-Saxon so I'm not entirely restricted to views expressed in Modern English.

The latin is useless when it comes to the Peninsular war, but the French might be useful.

As to the EU, well you wanted to join! We only helped you in. Besides Portugal is a net beneficiary in financial terms from the EU. Before you joined you couldn't export vinho verde, so there are swings and roundabouts in every decision.

The EU is the lesser evil. We already knew what expected us. While it is true that we live better than what we used to, it is also true that most of what we used to have is or is about to be destroyed. Now the EU is going to let the Spaniards fish in our waters (they already over-fished their own waters, now they want to ruin ours). We got in because our most important trading partner (Spain) also wanted to join. But like I said, rest assured that Britain was defending its own interests, not ours. But yes, our leaders at the time wanted to join the EU so if it is anyone's fault, it's ours.

I didn't imply that Lisbon wasn't a fine city or a good place to live, personally I dislike London, but London is a much more cosmopolitan city than Lisbon, or indeed any other European city.

I agree, and that is largely why I love my city so much. Lisbon is the only capital in Europe who has a castle, a gorgeous river, a monumental imperial past, nightlife and a very decent beache line just a few miles from it. Best of all, it has its own soul, and that's largely why I love it so much - it's unique.

London is way too large. Furthermore, when I go to Britain I expect to see Britons, not the United Colours of Benetton.

[Cerdic]

The official returns of the British army state that on the 25th August 1813 there were in Spain and Portugal 60,202 (7,260 cavalry) British and KGL troops. For a country which, due to domestic political reasons, did not have conscription or an ability to send militia units abroad this is not a meagre contribution. It was, in fact, more than a quarter of the total British military manpower, considering Britain's worldwide comitments it is a very large proportion indeed.

[alex221166]

Cerdic said:

The official returns of the British army state that on the 25th August 1813 there were in Spain and Portugal 60,202 (7,260 cavalry) British and KGL troops. For a country which, due to domestic political reasons, did not have conscription or an ability to send militia units abroad this is not a meagre contribution. It was, in fact, more than a quarter of the total British military manpower, considering Britain's worldwide comitments it is a very large proportion indeed.

In 1813, there was no fighting in Portugal. The fighting was happening in Spain (and possibly in the Roussillon). I find it extremely hard to believe that all those 60.000 troops were British or German mercenaries. Just as a means of comparison, Wellington's Anglo-Allied army of the 100 days' campaign (which included Brits, KGL, Dutch, Belgians, Hanoverians and Brunswickers) amounted to a total of around 70.000. Of those, maybe some 25.000 could have been British - the rest were foreign mercenaries. Might I remind that in 1813, many of the Dutch and Belgian troops that would later fight with Wellington in Waterloo or Quatre-Bras were at that time fighting for Napoleon, so you can't even include those.

Another reason why I find the number astonishing is because of the war of 1812 between USA and Britain (during which a significant proportion of Wellington's veteran troops were shipped to America - I don't know if they were available for the 1813 campaigns, but I doubt it).

Now, if the British considered the German mercenaries of the KGL as members of the British Army, we could well expect that the same would happen to the Portuguese units that were fighting with them (after all, the country who paid their salaries was Britain). Furthermore, I also read that sometime during 1808 or 1809, after seeing the successes of the Anglo-Portuguese army and after realising that it would be a great bargain to use cheap Portuguese conscripts, the size of the Anglo-Portuguese army was DOUBLED from ~34.000 to almost twice that number. That might explain your stats.

In any case, this is completely pointless if we remember that the only reason why we were invaded in the first place was because we had the guts and the loyalty to stand by our allies at a time when Napoleon had never been defeated. Our pay for our loyalty? Open a history book about the Portuguese XIX century. Or maybe you could open the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911, that's one of my favourites.

[Mouguias]

A very insightful and interesting thread, but as it always happens, it has nothing to do with the original topic.
Alex, thank you for sharing your knowledge about Portuguese history. I often forget how biased and poor my view of history is, it is healthy from time to time to hear a non-American, non-British version of it. The expansion of British Empire over South America, Portugal, Spain and Malta along the XIXth century, is not exactly a popular source of inspiration in Hollywood blockbusters – therefore, it simply “doesn`t exist”. The English, you know, are the official “good guys”, and that`s it.
Cedric, the question of my topic was not how kind Britain was to Portugal (as Alex put it, foreign policy rests not on goodness, but convenience). My point is, English popular culture is a deeply chauvinistic one. I guess you won`t dare disagree on that one. Bridget Jones is simply one more sample of that chauvinism – or rather, “jingoism”. It is a, let`s say, “average” sample, while the coarse distortion in English tabloids, that Alex has mentioned (poor Britons, beaten by swarthy Portuguese cops), might pass as a “low-level” sample, and The Lord of the Rings as an “elevated” one. But the idea is basically the same.

[Cerdic]

alex said:

In 1813, there was no fighting in Portugal. The fighting was happening in Spain (and possibly in the Roussillon). I find it extremely hard to believe that all those 60.000 troops were British or German mercenaries. Just as a means of comparison, Wellington's Anglo-Allied army of the 100 days' campaign (which included Brits, KGL, Dutch, Belgians, Hanoverians and Brunswickers) amounted to a total of around 70.000. Of those, maybe some 25.000 could have been British - the rest were foreign mercenaries. Might I remind that in 1813, many of the Dutch and Belgian troops that would later fight with Wellington in Waterloo or Quatre-Bras were at that time fighting for Napoleon, so you can't even include those.

Another reason why I find the number astonishing is because of the war of 1812 between USA and Britain (during which a significant proportion of Wellington's veteran troops were shipped to America - I don't know if they were available for the 1813 campaigns, but I doubt it).

Now, if the British considered the German mercenaries of the KGL as members of the British Army, we could well expect that the same would happen to the Portuguese units that were fighting with them (after all, the country who paid their salaries was Britain). Furthermore, I also read that sometime during 1808 or 1809, after seeing the successes of the Anglo-Portuguese army and after realising that it would be a great bargain to use cheap Portuguese conscripts, the size of the Anglo-Portuguese army was DOUBLED from ~34.000 to almost twice that number. That might explain your stats.

In any case, this is completely pointless if we remember that the only reason why we were invaded in the first place was because we had the guts and the loyalty to stand by our allies at a time when Napoleon had never been defeated. Our pay for our loyalty? Open a history book about the Portuguese XIX century. Or maybe you could open the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911, that's one of my favourites.

It is somewhat pointless to argue over official returns, they were made out by the people responsible for paying and feeding all these men, they needed to have an accurate idea of their numbers. The majority of the personnel of the KGL were Hanoverians, and therefore subjects of King George III, to speak of them as merely mercenaries is something of a slight.

The numbers are as I stated, British and KGL, NOT Portuguese or Spanish. The KGL at the time was an integral part of the British army, clothed, trained and treated essentially identically with regular British units. The same is not true of the Black Brunswickers, they were paid by the British but their "establishment" was totally separate from the British army itself.

I was aware that there was no fighting in Portugal in 1813, I was under the impression that you were slighting the manpower contribution of Britain to the Peninsular war as a whole (the border between Portugal and Spain was meaningless in campaign terms).

Earlier in the war General Moore had 30,000 British troops under his command in the Corunna campaign.

Yes Britain was fighting the USA at the time, but European fighting was given priority over fighting further afield. The Americans could field only relatively modest armies (indeed some of its militia units refused to serve outside the country - making invasion of Canada difficult) and the British had the help of an enthusiastic Canadian militia.

There are a number of reasons why there were relatively few British in the Waterloo campaign.

1) Many Peninsular veteran units had been sent to North America after Napoleon's first abdication.

2) For political reasons Britain had not declared war on France, it declared Napoleon a criminal and the campaign was directed (silly but true) against him personally. This meant that the militia, which had been dismissed at the peace of 1814, could not be recalled (as the country was not formally at war). This meant that the militia couldn't relieve the professional army of much of its home garrison duties.

Therefore the manpower immediately available was limited.

[Cerdic]

Mouguias said:

A very insightful and interesting thread, but as it always happens, it has nothing to do with the original topic.
Alex, thank you for sharing your knowledge about Portuguese history. I often forget how biased and poor my view of history is, it is healthy from time to time to hear a non-American, non-British version of it. The expansion of British Empire over South America, Portugal, Spain and Malta along the XIXth century, is not exactly a popular source of inspiration in Hollywood blockbusters – therefore, it simply “doesn`t exist”. The English, you know, are the official “good guys”, and that`s it.
Cedric, the question of my topic was not how kind Britain was to Portugal (as Alex put it, foreign policy rests not on goodness, but convenience). My point is, English popular culture is a deeply chauvinistic one. I guess you won`t dare disagree on that one. Bridget Jones is simply one more sample of that chauvinism – or rather, “jingoism”. It is a, let`s say, “average” sample, while the coarse distortion in English tabloids, that Alex has mentioned (poor Britons, beaten by swarthy Portuguese cops), might pass as a “low-level” sample, and The Lord of the Rings as an “elevated” one. But the idea is basically the same.

Yes there is chauvanism in Britain, yes there is racism in Britain. However, in general British society is more tolerant than most. You are talking of a country whose national dish is chicken tikka masala (invented in London by Indians). Fascistic political parties are far more marginal in Britain than in France (Front National) or Austria for example. We also tolerate people crossing roads when the little man is red! Try doing that in Germany, or Denmark (personal experience) even if there is no traffic in sight!

Tolkien is a poor example, for a start LOTR was written in the late 1940's, things have changed greatly since. Also Tolkien was writing in a strain which appeals to the British sense of loss. England's green and pleasant land, of villages and hamlets, of bucolic charm hasn't existed for 200 years. We were the first industrialised nation, we are one of the most urbanised nations in the world. Tolkien was not reflecting any sort of British reality he was addressing a national nostalgia.

BTW it's Cerdic, Cedric was an invention of Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe. Cerdic is an anglicisation of the Welsh/British Ceretic, Caradoc, Caradawc and was the name of the founder of the West-Saxon monarchy, and therefore of the English monarchy.

[alex221166]

You are talking of a country whose national dish is chicken tikka masala (invented in London by Indians).

I don't find that a good thing (to have a foreign national dish is an oxymoron).

Fascistic political parties are far more marginal in Britain than in France (Front National) or Austria for example.

The BNP is much more radical than the FN or the FPoE. The FN and the FPoE aren't really fascist nor racist, although they are definitely against havning open borders. I don't like the extreme right, but in my opinion you British should be less tolerant in allowing yourselves to be invaded by foreigners. London is already considered a haven for terrorists, and what happened recently during Qaradawi's stay in London (or with Omar Bakri Mohammed) shows that suicidal tolerance is not a quality but a flaw. What is worst is that due to Schengen, there are no borders and these "English" terrorists roam free through Europe. Three of them were caught filming shopping center parking lots in Portugal during the Euro.

We also tolerate people crossing roads when the little man is red!

Well, in my country we cross when there are no cars. The lights are for cars, no for people.

Tolkien is a poor example, for a start LOTR was written in the late 1940's, things have changed greatly since. Also Tolkien was writing in a strain which appeals to the British sense of loss. England's green and pleasant land, of villages and hamlets, of bucolic charm hasn't existed for 200 years. We were the first industrialised nation, we are one of the most urbanised nations in the world. Tolkien was not reflecting any sort of British reality he was addressing a national nostalgia.

I agree with you on this one. I think that Tolkien was addressing the dangers of blind industrialisation and mechanisation (Orcs) and comparing them to the peaceful and biologically sustainable existence of the Hobbits. I didn't see it as a racial issue, but as an ideological one.


By the way, as to our "Napoleonic" issue, I'll have to trust your words since I directed most of my research while reading about the issue, to the French invasions of the Portuguese territory itself. In any case, the presence of 60.000 British/KGL soldiers in 1813 doesn't mean that there were as many troops in 1808 (I am sure that there weren't) especially if we think that the Spanish theatre of operations was much vaster than the Portuguese.

[Cerdic]

Rabbit pie is considered an old traditional county dish, but rabbits were introduced by the Normans (possibly the Romans) they are not indigenous to Britain (unlike the hare). Normans, Romans, Indians it doesn't really matter, possibly the only truely indigenous dish is porridge. We gave you the concept of pudding "puddim?," by the way.

Can we be judged both chauvanistic and too tolerant simultaneously?

Le Pen visited the leader of the BNP recently (in Britain), they look like peas of the same pod to me.

In 1808 there were around 17,000 British troops sent to Portugal. This rose to 30,000 in 1809, before falling again for a while in the aftermath of the evacuation of the army from Corunna.

[alex221166]

Can we be judged both chauvanistic and too tolerant simultaneously?

The two are compatible. You are terribly afraid to be called "racist". I suspect that this has to do with having been a colonial power (something similar happens in Portugal). The real problem comes when you stop criticizing someone's actions or beliefs because that someone is not a native Briton. I don't think that the British are chauvinistic (that's mostly a French trait), but they do live in an Anglo-centred world, probably a legacy of the victorian age.

Le Pen visited the leader of the BNP recently (in Britain), they look like peas of the same pod to me.

Le Pen is not anti European immigration. The BNP is, and it is mostly an organisation for hooligans. Most of the supporters of the FN are regular citizens who live in areas with a high % of north Africans. Many FN supporters are Portuguese immigrants living in France. See what I mean?

In 1808 there were around 17,000 British troops sent to Portugal. This rose to 30,000 in 1809, before falling again for a while in the aftermath of the evacuation of the army from Corunna.

Yes, that seems reasonable considering the size of of the opposing French armies.