Skip to main content

England!

Why is that when the Olympics roll around, Team GB competes for these isles, but at the equivalent World Cup, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the UK "nations") have their own potential teams. This seems odd, if not wrong. Surely, a British football team would make more sense, - in terms of sure-footedness. There is no English parliament, and no England seat at the UN. France, Brazil, Spain, South Africa, the US of A - all teams. There is no Texas team. England maybe should be its own nation state, just as Scotland and Wales could be (should be?) - but in the meantime, let's consider this - if all four of the great nations of the UK played together in the beautiful game's greatest contest, they'd quadruple their chances of raising the trophy high.
Labels:

Comments

Coirí Filíochta said…
Surely Todd, being a British-Canadian-irish person, you'd be able to articulate these cultural subtleties?
Sat Jun 12, 07:21:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Ha! Yes, true. My multiculturalism comes from a Canadian context, I suppose - where fierce inter-provincial rivalries tend to stay within the country's borders - competitions abroad are as a Team Canada, not Team Quebec (the size of England and more) or Team Alberta (ditto).
Sat Jun 12, 07:45:00 pm 2010
Sheenagh Pugh said…
Because football's more tribal than that? A lot of fans don't look beyond one team, let alone one country, and "Britain" only has a discernible identity to some. A lot of English people use it synonymously with England, while for many Scots, Welsh and Irish it symbolises either, again, England/imperialism, or something nebulous and invented that they don't feel part of.
Sun Jun 13, 09:25:00 am 2010
David Floyd said…
While things would have been different 20 or even 10 years ago, I don't think England's chances would increase much if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland joined them in a British team now.

It's possible no Scottish, Wales or Northern Irish players would get in the squad. At the very most there would be two or three.
Sun Jun 13, 05:14:00 pm 2010
Alan Baker said…
There may be a more prosaic reason for the separate teams; historically, separate Football Associations evolved, and that's what FIFA bases its 'nationality' on. However, I think the creation of a Scottish parliament - even with its limited powers - has helped, paradoxically, to create a sense of English nationalism that didn't exist last time England won the World Cup (the flag of choice then was the Union Jack).
Mon Jun 14, 09:09:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Alan, thanks for that cogent explanation!
Wed Jun 16, 12:05:00 pm 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more