Talk:Anglophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents


[edit] Talk page clean-up

I have cleared this discussion page since there has not been any more controversy since the article was rewritten, and the old comments could be misinterpreted as referring to the new page. Issues can be looked up in the history page in any case! Starpol 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that you're not really suppose to edit the talk pages with a few exceptions. As an alternative solution consider archiving older discussions so they can be easily accessed yet aren't "in the way." Benjiboi 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about "racism" and "cultural superiority"

Hey there, since British people do not constitute a race, I don't think it makes sense to speak of anglophobia as "racism" towards them. Even if they did constitute a race, as the page on racism says, the notion of "reverse racism" is at best controversial. Also, stating that England is politically dominant in the British isles is acceptable, but that they're culturally dominant? Come on! Can we edit these two things out?

Macho Philipovich 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't accept it as racism, why not xenophobia, which is much the same thing. Alun 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well England is culturally dominant in the UK, everyone speaks English and whereas many English people may be uninformed as to the specifics of Welsh or Scottish culture, Welsh and Scottish people are more than au fait with English culture. I went to a Welsh language school in Wales and we studied Shakespeare and English poetry etc. Alun 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And what does constitute a race? Maybe you should look at wiki's page on Race. There is no biological underpinning for the word, it's a purely cultural concept. 217.196.239.189 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Alun 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtophobia

Celtophobia is having a VfD. It's a stupid article, have a look at the talk page for my opinion, it's related to this article. Alun 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sport

I removed the section about football hooliganism. This problem is a general one in football and is displayed by rival fans of all nations. It is not the Englishness of the fans that causes the violence, but the fact that they are the fans of any rival team. Alun 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution

It is not explained in the text how this sentence is in any way related to anglophobia. I can see no relevance, I have not removed it but will in the near future if someone does not explain how it fits into the article. Devolution is a UK political phenomenon, the devolved assemblies/parliaments derive their authority from the UK Parliament and not from England, they include London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was a referendum for an assembly in the North East of England in 2004 that failed.[1].
Devolution in the United Kingdom created new institutions in a significant constitutional change that established regional governments that would be able to legislate individually for members of the union, while maintaining its perceived benefits. Alun 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orwell Quote

The quote itself says "Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia", so what on earth is the point of quoting Orwell's attack on Celtic nationalism here? Rhion 12:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. Neither of the quotes (Bronte's or Orwell's) actually refer to Anglophiobia as a cultural phenomenon, as the introduction to the section implies. One quote merely refers to it in passing as anti-English sentiment, the other simply uses it to state that Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as anglophobia. It would make more sense if the section was simplified, and was just a list of literary quotes in which the word occurs. The introduction could dispense with the current wording and say something like Use of the word Anglophilia in literature. The quotes do not have to be so long either, these would do:
I read Anglophobia in your looks, and hear it in your words.
Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation....But Celtic nationalism is not the same thing as Anglophobia.
and I'm not sure the first section of the Orwell quote is absolutely necessary. Alun 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA

During the period of alliance between Britain and the USA, andglophobia took another form. Fleet Admiral Ernest King had been noted for his anglophobic views which affected his decision making during the Second Battle of the Atlantic.

So what were the decisions that were affected by his anglophobia?. If you don't give the decisions, and the reason why they are considered to be influences by anglophobia then this sentence, though referenced, serves no purpose. Alun 05:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the sentance makes the reader aware of one important historic instance where anglophoabia may have played a part. The reasons are given in the article on Ernest King reached by the internal link. I didnt want to duplicate the same detail here.Starpol 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's a bit confusing, as the sentence reads, Anglophobia took another form, but we are left guessing what that other form actually is. The article on Ernest King is not much more illuminating, it just mentions a single decission might have been due to his Anglophobia, but it is not verified, and I have done a google to try to get some verification for this, but to no avail. Alun 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Intro

The statement that the term was coined in 18thC. America should appear in the intro along with the definition. And doesn't the definition (omitting the 'irrational' aspect of phobia) include attitudes that are perfectly reasonable and understandable?--Shtove 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This article does need to be changed a bit. I would also re-think the deltion of the football hooliganism as although it is found in various other countries, England does have a particularly bad reputation for it, and violence surrounding football involving England fans often does not involve "hooligans" meaning the organised football firms that operate in every country but normal English people who are prone to disrespecting, offending and abusing others. The behaviour of English people abroad in general, and not just relating to football, has a reputation for being pretty awful. Benson85 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed

"England has historically overshadowed the international standing of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, at times, even the United Kingdom.[5] Consequently, Anglophobia within the UK is linked to England’s position as the politically and culturally dominant member of the union.[neutrality disputed] [6] As well as its aggressive and oppressive history towards Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and arrogant attitude towards them in modern times."

Two points to make in relation to this:

1. Devolution has created a new power dynamic within the United Kingdom and some English people, such as the English Democrats, argue that Scottish MPs have more power than they should - and also point to the number of Scottish politicians occupying key positions in the British government.

2. What does this talk of arrogant attitudes relate to? Is this not in the eye of the beholder?

I think this entire article is a little too anecdotal - and contains some bias.

User:Anon 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Devolution is not relevant to anglophobia as a concept. Anglophobia is irrational, people only need excuses to be Anglophobic they do not need real reasons. You will also see that the reference is to history, are you disputing that England has historically overshadowed the other nations? This section is referenced, if you can find a reference for the other point of view (that England hasn't historically overshadowed the other nations) then they should be included. Your comments about Scottish politicians are irrelevant to this page, take them up on articles about devolution, though I would note that Scotland is part of the UK, so why shouldn't Scottish politicians be there, this is not the government of England, but of the UK. The sentence about arrogance has been removed, it has obviously been put there by someone who seems to be suffering from anglophobia themselves, it is not referenced.Alun 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

As it stands, the section on Quebec is not relevant to an article on Anglophobia. As far as I can tell, it's about the relationship of the French-speaking Canadians with the colonial government and its federal successor. That isn't the subject of this article. Which isn't to say there shouldn't be a section on Quebec: it may be that there are published references to Anglophobia in Quebec, as opposed to political friction between Canadians, or discrimination against English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. However, unless someone comes up with such references, I suggest we delete the section. Countersubject 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems little more than a defence of anti-anglophone and anglophobia in Quebec. Like, the British state did all these terrible things to Quebecers a century or so ago, so it's OK for us to be anglophobes and to hate other Canadians now. It's the same sort of twisted logic we get from certain groups of anti-English nationalists in the UK, so they can justify their messages of hate and racism. The truth in the UK is that most of our history is about exploitation/repression by the gentry and the aristocracy of the general working population, there's never been any systematic oppression of one ethnic group by another that I know of. The article also fails to give the other POV, which is that Quebec now has a fair degree of autonomy and that it is English that is supressed and not French. Alun 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Irish and Scottish historians will no doubt disagree on a "never any oppression" statement for the British Isles, and I won't get into the colonies. I would like to clear up things on the "English" of Quebec. Among the minorities in Canada, the English-speaking minority of Quebec is the one with the most extended linguistic rights, much more than those of French-speaking minorities in English Canada. They are comparable and often superior to those of other national minorities in the world. The community has the right to use English at the National Assembly of Quebec and all laws are promulgated and translated in English. The members of their community also have the right to trials in their language and the judge is obligated to render judgement in English. They can obtain all services in English from the Quebec public administration and various municipalities. They have their own extensive quality media (press, television, radio, etc.). With a proportion of 8%-10% of the population, they have three prestigious universities well-funded by the Quebec government. They control their own various health and social service institutions and their hospitals obtain a proportion of hospital funding actually much larger than their proportion (a recent funding had the money split 50-50 between two Montreal hospital projects, one French and one English, while the Montreal proportion of Anglophones is 25%). In English Canada, the only French-speaking hospital west of Quebec, Montfort Hospital, has suffered an attempt to close it by the Ontario government in the 1990s (it was finally prevented by the Court of Appeal). The English minority controls its schools, where 97% of its children can go. In some English Canadian provinces, only 10% of the French minority children can be educated in a French-speaking school. They have access to all partly state-controlled services. [2] The rights of the English minority are protected in Quebec Law, they are upheld by succeeding government of all colours and the nationalist have included the firm guarantee of their rights in the party platforms and the legal documents pertaining to their sovereignty project in referendums. The Quebec government, under a nationalist government, in 1999, promulgated the policy that makes sure that 25% of all new hirings, internships and summer jobs in the Quebec public service be given to English-speakers, allophones and aboriginals. --Liberlogos 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Having read what you have written, it is massively hypocritical to state that what I said was POV, yours was simply a defence of racism in Quebec, you provide no sources or citations and give no other point of view. At least I have provided a source. If you want to give the other POV, ie that there is no anti-anglophone racial tension in Quebec, then provide a source and put it in. This article is not here to spread the message that it's OK to hate English/British and anglophone Canadians because the British government were nasty to us first. If you want to start a race hate campaign then I suggest you do it elsewhere. This is not a history article.Alun 05:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Irish and Scottish historians will no doubt disagree on a "never any oppression" statement for the British Isles. Not in my experience, only Irish and Scots nationalists disagree. I never made any claim for never any oppression, you are deliberately changing what I said in order to contradict a claim I never made. The question is who were the oppressors and who the oppressed? My experience of both Irish and Scots historians on wikipedia is that they don't see any oppression except that of the aristocracy/gentry/rulers against the people. Where is the evidence of racial oppression of Scots or Irish people by English people? For example the worst oppression Scotland ever saw was the Highland Clearances, but this crime was commited by the Scots indigenous aristocracy, before Scotland chose to unify with England. The worst suffering in Ireland was the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849), but this crime was commited by the UK state and had little to do with the sufferers being Irish and everything to do with the state being indifferent to the poorer classes. Scotland, England and the UK were not democracies during any of these periods, and so they were not supported or carried out by the people, or even by governments that could reasonably claim to be representing the people. English and Welsh people suffered just as much from the authoritarian attitude of the state, a wave of land enclosures (essentially the state or state institutions stealing common land for private use) occured in England before those of the Highland Clearances in Scotland see Enclosure. The state massacred English and Welsh working people just as freely as Irish, Scots or Quebecers, see Peterloo Massacre (See also Corn Laws, Riot Act, Chartism). As for the colonies, that has little to do with English or British people and everything to do with a greedy ruling elite. It is typical of racists/nationalists to conflate a whole people (English/British people) with the historical actions of a small authoritarian unrepresentative elite (the aristocracy), it serves their purpose to portray themselves as the victims of a mythical historical racism so as to justify their own racism. Be that as it may, this is irrelevant to the anglophobia article, as is the totality of your response, what has the status of Anglophone Quebecers got to do with anglophobia? I just had a communication from an anglophone Canadian that gave the opposite impression to the one you give, not that I really care, I consider it petty in the extreme to fight like children about who started it, racism is racism whether it's perpetrated by francophone or anglophone Canadians. This article does not exist in order to justify racism, the article is about a thing called anglophobia it is not about the excuses used by nationalists to defend their racism. Alun 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
An important source of the problem is that I believed this article stood for general "opposition" in all forms. Sometimes Wikipedia articles are badly titled because a common expression is not found to encompass the subject matter. Its inclusion in the "Anti-national sentiment" category gave me a wrong impression and I believed it was "the" equivalent article. ...and I thought such an article dealt with petty rivalry. Example: the Anti-Canadianism article deals with an anti-Canadian sentiment in the US by citing trivial things like the Missile Defense Plan refusal by the Canadian government and in Brazil by speaking of government subsidies to a planes and trains building company. Anti-Canadianism cites South Park, the movie. Anti-Australian sentiment cites Australian soap operas. So, the examples listed were not supposed to justify anything more than did the love affairs of TV show Neighbours. If one is fair, one will see that the examples of "opposition" cited in the second part were not hatred, only refusal to be a subject of a chief of state, which shows what I believed the article could touch. If I hadn't, I never would have added that. After a small edit I made, a Wikipedian asked me to "cite" the "historical events" the original section mentioned and I tried to do it to be helpful. I agree with you then: the section is not relevant to "Anglophobia" in this definition. My comment on the Anglo-Quebecois was a clarification on what you brought up here on this talk page, nothing else. I hope it is understood that my attempts were not ill-intentioned and that the perception that any of this listing justified what was accused it justified is a misunderstanding. I state my anglophilia and say how much the English are my very brothers. --Liberlogos 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it's a genuine mistake, I can see where the confusion might arise. Sorry if it got a bit heated. All the best. Alun 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is indeed a social discrimination of anglophones (not only English Canadians) in Québec. The institutionalised forms of racism are another story; as said, this should discuss popular sentiment, and there is a popular anti-English sentiment in Québec; one need only "infiltrate" the francophone community to hear countless stories about "un maudit anglais", opinions for their expulsion, whining and complaints about them - and yet there is no real difference between the behaviour of French and English Québécois, both having their share of pleasant and unpleasant people. The sole difference is one's use of the English language, which is then translated into an essentially racial difference, and a fierce expression of negative nationalism on the part of the Québécois. This is not something in the provincial Parliament; it is a crystal-clear social phenomenon, from every dépanneur to every school and every household - because anglophones have to go home every day after having been beaten on for living where and how they choose; for excercising their fundamental human rights. It exists everywhere, not just in the law, and thus has its place here.

[edit] Move to Anti-English sentiment

Moving this to Anti-English sentiment, would be a good idea. It would follow a Wikipedia standard (and solidify it), it is a more neutral term and encompasses more elements, elements that can be included nowhere else. The study of what could have partly contributed to a unfavourable sentiment would no longer be labeled as making excuses for hatred. The extreme forms of negative sentiment, that fall under the concepts of racism or xenophobia, would still be examined. ...or, if deemed necessary, the alternative would be to split the article into Anglophobia & Anti-English sentiment. --Liberlogos 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is a red herring. Changing the title won't address the points I made about your edits (see above, at the head of the Quebec section). Also, 'Anglophobia' is a widely recognised term. By all means set up a re-direct from 'Anti-English Sentiment', but changing the title to avoid hard questions about an individual's edits isn't a good idea. Countersubject 07:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I only witnessed the contention over Scotland, Ireland and Quebec matters (not over an individual's edits) and thought it grew from a problem in the different understandings of the range of the article. The peaceful opposition to a country or government or humorous rivalry with them is still a social phenomenon that cannot, regarding the country/government in question here, be discussed in this article (as it is) or other articles at the moment. This is the remark. --Liberlogos 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually Liberlogos I think there really is a misunderstanding on your part here. Above in the Quebec section of the discussion page you state that you misunderstood the Anglophobia article because it was included in the Anti-national sentiment category, but this is the correct category, England is a nation and Anglophobia is the hatred of the English as a nation. Wales, Scotland and Ireland are nations as well, some people think of the British as a nation. Nations are not the same as states, nations are groups of people that have a shared culture/history/language and usually territory. States are political entities that have governments and armies etc, hence the concept of the Stateless nation. Any category that lists Anti-national sentiment should be about racism/xenophobia against a nation or ethnic group (see the difference between Ethnic group, Nation, State and Country). I maintain that though it is clearly in the scope of an encyclopaedia to have articles about various types of anti-national sentiment, it is not in its scope to try to defend or excuse this by the use of historical events to explain the reason for the ethnic hatred. I think that what you contributed here and would like to contribute to your proposed Anti-English sentiment article correctly belongs in the History of Quebec article, or possibly a specific article about the History of the conflict between Quebec and the United Kingdom and subsequently Canada. Alun 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is my understanding that in the English language, "nation" meaning "sovereign state" is a common definition. I have consulted various English language dictionaries about "nation". They mostly list the definition of a political entity / country / state as first entry, and mention the concept you have brought forward afterwards. I will quote those entries about the first type of definition.
The Collins dictionary says that a "nation" is:
  1. an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc., organized into a single state the Australian nation; [3]
Cambridge dictionary gives:
  1. [C] a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc:
All the nations of the world will be represented at the conference.
The Germans, as a nation, are often thought to be well organized.
Practically the whole nation watched the ceremony on television. [4]
American Heritage gives:
  1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
  2. The government of a sovereign state. [5]
Also, Merriam-Webster lists:
  1. a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality [6]
And the Wikipedia nation article you cite notes the ambiguity:
  • Ambiguity in usage (section): In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state.
This conception is seen in the use of expressions like "national representation" or even the "United Nations", which concern sovereign states, "nationalization" which is taking assets into state ownership, as well as governmental organizations such as the National Security Agency in the USA, the National Health Service in the UK or the National Assembly in France. I understand that in the United Kingdom, the term "nation" is more easily bestowed to "peoples", "cultural societies" and I salute it (sharply unlike in English Canada, in which calling Quebec a nation is highly controversial), so that might have created a misunderstanding on your part also. So, the term "anti-national" is not antinomic with an opposition to a state. The suggestion about the History of Quebec article or a specific article about the History of the conflict between Quebec and the United Kingdom and subsequently Canada does not seem ideal if it were the only place where it would be since it isolates it, instead of a collective article (I guess it could be something like 'Conflict with the United Kingdom'). Also, I pointed out that my concern was international, not only Quebec.
Also, I wonder if a discouragement of the mention of events is the right choice; it may keep our heads in the sand. Even if we talk of hate, it can be influenced, stoked by certain events, even if it is not a right reaction and even if we don't like it. The hater witnesses an event and draws their own wrong conclusions. Pointing this out is an observation that can be useful to comprehend the issue and which does not condone the subsequent behaviour of the subject. As examples (which should not be made into anything they're not): in the United States, a number of people criticize the "They hate us for our freedom" view of opposition to the USA, maintaining that the issue is more complex. Some maintain also that war or prisoner abuse feeds the hate. It does not entail that those people justify the hate or the violence. I am also reminded of two Quebec tragedies. One involved an armed man storming in the National Assembly of Quebec (Denis Lortie) and one a university shooting of women (Marc Lépine). The first had the criminal motivated by an opposition to the government and the second motivated by a hate for feminism. In the Columbine shooting, the perpetrators had been bullied at school. If these aspects were removed from a study of the events, something would be lost from the possibility to study and try to understand. Yet mentioning it in no way equates to justification of the response or even to agreement about the nature of the initial event. --Liberlogos 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You still seem to be confused, these definitions do not apply to the state, but to the people that live in the state, the population if you will, they do not refer to the state itself. In the examples you quote only one states that the nation is the state, the others simply claim that the nation is the people:
Cambridge: a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.
Note with their own government, it is not the state, but the people that is being refered to.
American Heritage: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government
Again it is the people and not the state that is refered to, and it's usually independent government, independent government is not a prerequisite.
For example the term nation in Great Britain is used to describe the peoples of Wales, England and Scotland; but it is also sometimes used to describe the whole of the population of Great Britain (and sometimes the UK). So people can refer to the Welsh nation and also to the British nation, though the concept of a British nation is rejected by many nationalists. It is also true that many new states encourage their populations to identify as a single nation in order to foster a sense of shared identity, Australia is a prime example, as is the USA. It is worth noting that the word nationality is a legal term used to denote citizenship in UK law, so my nationality is legally British, this simply means that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. Alun 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the article, I would prefer to abandon the use of different countries as sub headings, and concentrate on the concept of Anglophobia. The issue of percieved historical injustices can be mentioned, but I think it needs to be expressed in its correct context. What I mean by this is that we can mention that England/Grea Britain/the UK has used force on numerous occasions against various ethnic groups and nations, and that the use of force by the state has led to a resentment of the nation (ie the people), and that this resentment has, in some cases been used by nationalists to demonise the whole people. Alun 13:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Expansion of article

I agree with the view that listing historic events that are sometimes cited by anglophobes as 'justification' for anglophobia need to be included, and with citations. This article has a long history of listing 'reasons for anglophobia' without establishing a context that discusses the nature of the bias or the gross oversimplification of history that underlies them. The french version of this article also gives a list of 'reasons' for anglophobia, which I have resisted translating and adding until I have investigated the context. This articles section on France needs looking at again, it is too vague.

I also think there is another dimension that needs looking at: the antipathy towards english culture that sometimes arises (this is the other side of anglophobia, it is not only an antipathy toward the English as a people). Sometimes anglophobia manifests itself as a desire to purge the influence of english culture from a given country. Anglophobia, as with other forms of nationalism, to me seems to arise in part form a need to define one counry in relation to an 'other', which lies at the heart of a lot of prejudice and conflict. I think it would help to add a section on this, something like 'Indirect Anglophobia' or 'Cultural Anglophobia' and would welcome discussion on its possible content. It may need to touch on the the issue of anglophobia as it interacts with other issues, like Europhobia and Anti Anglo Saxonism. I propose to draft a new section and place it on my talk page for comment before incorporation into the main article. Starpol 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglophobia is a good thing

But that's because you British goats are incapable to speak any other language unlike we Maltese who are polyglot we know to speak as a rule Maltese, Italian, French and English. Yeah, British morons or better guilt ridden morons, always moaning on racism and xenophobia and the NAZI concentration camps, have you forgotten the camps of Maltese political prisoners in Uganda just because they defended our culture. Why don't you mind you're business in your filthy multiracial multicultural utopia - You unriliable ignonimous shopkeepers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manganello (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The only countries in the world that are universally hated are those that have actually achieved something. It is the curse of success. You may all hate us, but you speak our language - i.e. English, which comes from England. That, I think, is all that needs to be said. TharkunColl 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL you mean the French are the most successfull then! Claiming the English are "universally hated" is false and egocentric. There are the English who are not anglophobe after all, they are so proud of being English! Synchronicity I 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am acquainted with a fair few anglophobes who also happen to be English. I think they just felt that if it was good enough for the rest of the world, then it was good enough for them too. I take your point about the French though - absolutely everyone hates them! TharkunColl 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The only countries in the world that are universally hated are those that have actually achieved something. Isn't Anglophobia a hatred of English people, a hatred of the nation? The nation is not the country, the nation is the people. The country is the place where they live (a geographical area) and the state is the government and it's instruments (army, police, legal system indeed anything used by a ruling elite to subjugate the nation). As I said above, the English/British/UK state has oppressed it's own population as much as it has any other. I don't know what achievements you are refering to, but the achievements of the English nation are generally admired, culture, science art. But these things are also admired by English people when other nations achieve them, they tend to benefit humanity, do we hate the French because of Louis Pasteur? do the French hate us because of Charles Darwin? Similarly the achievements of the state are often crap (many wars, colonialism etc). In democracies sometimes the state does something useful for it's population, the NHS and universal education for example, but these are really very recent innovations and only exist because the state thinks it will benefit from them. Alun 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said nation really, as that is a more encompassing term than country, which is often synonymous with state. There is indeed a serious point in here somewhere though, and that is that countries or nations tend to be hated because of their influence. The English are disliked because of their influence on the world, especially, for example, through the medium of their language, and this influence was achieved through the vehicle of the state and its power. TharkunColl 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"English are disliked because of their influence on the world, etc." LOL, er, not exactly, in the contrary the English, like the American or the French (even the Japanese) are hated because they claim to be able to influence the rest of the world, just like Gods, to remake the world and existing cultures after them, but the other countries didn't asked them anything. Telling they tried doesn't mean they succeeded their masterplan. These nations wanted to be respected, admired, loved by the indigenous (or natives) for what they could bring to them but they were actually hated for their imperialism, this hatred appears in the independence wars. These imperialist nations claimed to have created the most important cultures, they claimed that their own cultures were the best, that they were universal. But they just aren't, these statements were just imperialist lies. The English? The Beatles influenced worldwide Pop and the Stones Rock music, but they were inspired by Delta bluesmen. Except music, what else? (Benny Hill? just kidding!) Philosophy? British philosophy's worldwide legacy is peanuts compared to the Greek or Chinese philosophies. Anyway you could say exactly the same for the French, afterall French was the international language before English, but it happens to be false. Chinese is the most spoken language in the world and by far, not English, sorry to ruin your egocentric delusion of grandeur, I mean grandeur which happens to be a French word, just like more than 40% of English language. Actually anglophone francophobes speak French without even knowing it, a paradox! What's the English motto? "Dieu et mon droit" my! Ain't sound English! LMAO!! On a side note what's the strongest American symbol? The Statute of Liberty! Made in... France! Offered by France to it's Ally LOL! On a more neutral perspective, English could be regarded as one of the easiest language in the world, I mean no special characters (compared to German, Spanish, French or Nordic languages), just a basic 24-character alphabet (compare it with Hebrew, Arabic, Vietnamese, Russian or Korean), etc, it's not really the same as Japanese (one of the most complex language based on the use of thousands of symbols, two different phonetic systems and our own alphabet on top of it!) and Chinese, which is the most spoken language on Earth, ever. I agree on one thing though, true English is British English, of course! ;) Synchronicity I 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
These nations wanted to be respected, admired, loved by the indigenous (or natives) for what they could bring to them but they were actually hated for their imperialism,. What a load of bollocks, the nations didn't do anything. The state helped it's constituency, the landed elite, the aristocrats/gentry to make money. Anyone who thinks colonialism was about anything other than helping the rich get richer doesn't know their history. It has bugger all to do with the nation, the nation was not involved, only the state and the people it was acting on behalf of mainly those who wanted to make a money through exploitation, like the British East India Company.Alun 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"what a load of bollocks, the nations didn't do anything" false! the nation are responsible for such actions, who are the colons? Are they ministers? No they are the real people. Who was sent in Australia as colons? Anyway when a whole people disagree it is possible to stop political actions. This is how things works in democracies, people decide not a bunch of aristocrats. People who disagree do the Revolution, others keep their monarchy and follow the rule. Synchronicity I 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Irrespective of that, we should be discussing the article, you are off topic. Alun 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is "off topic" why are you answering it then? Don't use the "off topic" as an excuse for ranting. Synchronicity I 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
'bout the French, telling "absolutely everyone hates them", is a paranoid projection since the francophobia article only exists in two languages, English and Italian (the Chinese article is about soccer). It could be useful to remember you the world is not limited to English speaking countries nor Italia, there are a lot more, older and bigger. What's the world's most visited country? Is it England? The US? Is it Italy maybe? No... just the ol' France! Millions of fool Francophobes coming to France every year, LOL! Now about Anglophobia as a universal sentiment, I'm sorry to tell but the article only exists in three languages French, Dutch and Swedish, same comment as Francophobia. Now compare with the "England" and "France" articles, you'll find them in almost all languages. You can also look at the "featured articles" for "England" and "France" not a single one for both of them!! LOL! What does it mean? Just that these countries are not the center of talks worldwide. There are even more unregistered dialects in "offline countries" if you know what I mean. Look at these countries representatives, their capital, "London"? No featured articles, "Washington"? One featured article (Portugal), "Paris"? Three featured articles (Bulgaria, Finland, Lithuania), Tokyo? Two featured articles (Spain & Portugal), Beijing? Two (Germany and Hungaria), Rome? Three (Germany, Portugal &...) ...Italia itself! LOL That's what you can call patriotism, chauvinism or narcissism! What about Moscow? My goodness the Russians exist too! Three featured articles (Germany, South Africa, Vietnam). Paris & Moscow are the most featured articles. Those damn French and Russian er? I guess you'd expect the English articles to be more important, but it seems they aren't. Synchronicity I 20:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
err ... I think you've given TharkunColl the kind of response he wanted. Best to ignore him, really. Countersubject 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, erm, it was just a joke really. I am not so uncomfortable with my nationality that I cannot laugh at it. 'Nuff said. TharkunColl 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What's all this about? You appear to be ranting Synchronicity 1, keep it about the article please. Alun 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"What's all this about?" just answering to TharkunColl's "Anglophobia is a good thing". I did my part to the article anyway (translating the French article in English). Now I'm gonna translate the Spanish article per anglophobia in Spain. I don't think that letting the English alone to decide what Anglophobia is and what it is not, or to explain ourselves what is perceived as Anglophobia outside England is the better way to proceed. Anglophobia is a foreign perspective on England, that's why I think crossing international Pov is the better way to get neutral on a such article. Synchronicity I 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's try an alternative version of what you've just said, Synchronicity I, in which we retain the substance but change the participants: 'Anti-Semitism is a Gentile perspective on Jews'. Strictly speaking, that's true, but the undertones are rather unpleasant. Countersubject 08:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You've lost the plot Synchronicity I and let a frivolous remark throw you into (slightly Anglophobic) spasms. Is your insinuation that England has only given the world 1960s pop not slightly prejudiced? Science, economics, international sport, language, Englands huge contributions in all of these fields are irrelevant compared to an intangible like philosophy? I think not.

i must disagree with this, as an elnglishman living in scotland, all the anglophobics are just too thick to know anything exept from the fact that "england invaded us" they dont know that they invaded england aswell, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.197.61 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

The structure of this article is all wrong. We need to remove all of the headings by state, this article is about Anglophobia, not about how different countries see England and the English, nor is it a history lesson. If we are going to talk seriously about Anglophobia, then we need to discuss things like causes etc. One cause can be considered historical competition, so we can use France as an example, with the claims of the Plantagenet Kings of England to the French crown leading to long wars and mutual antipathy etc, this has mutated into an antipathy towards the English people, due to the actions of the English monarchy, etc. This is a good example of a possible cause of racism against England. Another cause is colonialism. So what I am suggesting is that we structure the headings by causes of Anglophobia.

  • In the introduction some explanation that before the 1920s/30s it was common to refer to the United Kingdom as England, and that it is still common outside of the UK, so that Anglophobia has come to mean hatred of the British as much as of the English.
  • First heading Historical enemies
Discussion of causes of ethnic hate due to historical wars, the conflict between the Plantagenets and the French Kings in the Hundred Years' War is a good example. How these long conflicts between monarchs mutated into mutual suspicion by the respective peoples. I think it should also be noted that the French and the English rather like each other as well. Could mention the Spanish Armada etc, but that this seems not to have lead to any great antipathy between the two populations.
  • Second heading Percieved oppression
Discussion of how English people are often portrayed/percieved as having oppressed the Irish/Welsh/Scottish minorities in the United Kingdom, for example the Welsh Not. I would stress that we need a ballanced account, especially the fact that little significant oppression is historically recorded, with most oppression being class related and not race related. But it is worth mentioning that nationalist movements is Ireland/Wales and Scotland encourage and exagerate the perception of oppression by English people, thereby feeding Anglophobia.
  • Third heading Colonialism
Discussion of racism by the British Empire, for example the Massacre of Amritsar, which has mutated into anglophobia in some former colonies.
  • Fourth heading. Asserting independence
Discussion of competition between former colonies and the UK, the competition between Australia and England in the Ashes is a good example, as is the whinging pomms epithet. Has much to do with asserting cultural/national independence.

These are my thoughts, any comments? Alun 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, fewer sections with their own thematic focus. I wonder whether the first section could be called something like Rival Powers and Empires, as it could take in the past animosity between England and Spain, if sources can be found to discuss this, looking at Anglophobia past and present. Anglophobia in the US existed/exists in various forms and they are obviously considered an ally, but could be discussed in the first section looking at the war of independence and WWII, for example. Would the second section only look at the UK? In some ways this would be helpful, as it shows the different types of anglophobia and the fact that it is interchangably directed towards the English or British. The issue of 'Opression' would crop up in a lot of areas, not just UK though of course, so will need a bit of thought. I am a bit cautious about calling the section Perceived Opression though - I see what you are getting at, but it could be considered un-NPOV, denying that opression ever took place, the counter argument that the opressors are the rulling classes will need making with cited sources. The last section could possibly broaden out under the title of 'Post-Colonial National Identity and Anglophobia', and the rivalries that are seen, as you say, between former colonies and England/UK, and some of the jingoistic foundation myths in the far right US view of Britain.Starpol 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes all of the points you have made are very good. I was thinking in terms of US War on Independance being a reaction to Colonialism, and also some of the info about Quebec that was here before. Rival Powers and Empires is a good heading. With the Percieved Oppression section I was thinking about modern nationalism on all of the Islands of the archipelago, but maybe it's too POV to entitle it Percieved Oppression, I'm sure we could call it Insular anti-English nationalism or something like that. What I'm trying to do is to get away from various anglophobias in different countries, and to concentrate on the reasons for this anglophobia, in many countries the motivation is similar, for example US/India/Quebec etc these can be seen as due to some form of oppression, in Australia/US (again)/South Africa it can be percieved as an attempt to self define as a new nation by distancing from the source nation etc. I hope that by expressing it this way we can move from a it's their own fault tone to a more these are the various causes style. Thanks for the support. I'll wait a bit longer and if there's no real opposition to the change I'll go looking for some sources and I'll have a go at a rewrite when I get some time, unless anyone else wants to have a crack? Alun 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Some interesting points have been made in this section, but they miss and exemplify the problem that much of the article, and the suggestions on this page, are at best speculation or an attempt at original interpretation or synthesis. That's not what Wikipedia is about. We ought to base the article on published surveys and analyses, and if we can't find them, then the article should be restricted to a dictionary-like definition, with references to related material. Countersubject 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but at the moment it's just a list of the history of anti-British feeling in various different countries. We just need to verify the causes of anglophobia and cite them here. At the moment the article is a mess and has no logical form or structure. Remember wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alun 05:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Nor is Wikipedia a publisher of original thought (oops - I'm trading slogans!). We need to to begin with a definition of terms, then follow up with a verifiable summary of published research that expands on that definition. Discussion of structure without this focus puts the cart before the horse, and will do nothing to discourage the kind of opinionated rant the article and its discussion page have suffered from. And if a paucity of published material won't support the proposed structure, then so be it. Sometimes less is more. Countersubject 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely, indeed I had stated that we should look for sources to support a restructuring. I also agree with the less is more philosophy. Some articles need to be short, this may well be one of them. One of the problems is that often when people come accross a short article they seem to feel the need to add extra content. There also seem to be quite a few people with an axe to grind that simply want to turn this article into a list of bad things those naughty British people have done over the centuries. What I'm most concerned about is removing the present by country structure. It does nothing for the article, and produces the sort of article that looks like it was written by a child for school homework, looks as bad as Football hooliganism. Alun 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France

This section doesn't tell us anything about the extent or nature of Anglophobia in France. Instead, it begines with a generalisation, then goes on to list a catalogue of reasons why the French should dislike the English. Its only value is as an example of Anglophobia. Countersubject 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this true of the whole article? Alun 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
By and large. But the France section is a particularly egregious case. Countersubject 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the whole article needs a rewrite, or possibly even redirecting to -phob-, the more I think about it the more I think that this article has little encyclopaedic value. What should we do, just define it? But that's what wiktionary is for, here is anglophobia on wiktionary, says it all really. The rest is just a stream of excuses and/or invective against the English people, usually because of what the state has done rather than the people. What I mean is that this article has become a place for racist people to make excuses about why they hate the English, rather than a proper article about the subject, but I think the subject is covered by articles such as Xenophobia or Racism. Alun 05:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Gibson

I'm not sure I should mention this, but should/is Mel Gibson mentioned here? I've seen news sources and one academic article on anglophobia mention him.--T. Anthony 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he should, there is a list of notable Anglophiles on Wikipedia so why not one for Anglophobes? 80.2.87.189 13:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I cleaned up the article. Still needs a lot of work. - Francis Tyers · 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Countersubject 13:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup removed a lot of Anglophobia and un-sourced generalisation. The main remaining difficulty is the France section, which is still long on accusation and short on detail and balance. Unless this is rectified, I propose we delete it. That would be a shame, because I'd like to know more about the history of French ill-feeling towards the British. Countersubject 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it seems mostly made up. Hardly anything in the realms of a real "phobia". - Francis Tyers · 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Countersubject: nice piece of editing. Are you sure about removing the USA? It seemed to have pertinent material, but I have no intention of reverting. Politis 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)



Is there any well known aglophobist or those who are anti english? I know the book The Evil Empire: 101 ways England ruined the World is likely Anti-England Phu2734 08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can Anglophobia include other Anglo-Saxons?

There are other Anglo-Saxons in the world than the natives of England. There are Anlo-Israelists, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australians, Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-South Africans, Anglo-Indians, Anglo-Burmese, Anglo-Malays, Anglo-Pinoys, Anglo-Egyptians, Anglo-Kenyans...would they also be included in the prejudices of Anglophobes?

I'm not sure that this works. The natives of England are English, not Anglo-Saxons. Enzedbrit 23:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland?

I think that this page definitely needs an Ireland section. The three countries mentioned here are not as Anglophobic as Ireland is. I shall see what I can find. Epa101 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah it should come under the scotland section due to the fact that anglophobia in ireland is familier to that in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.197.61 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)