ethnic minority

[troll]

Ditto-quite an interesting thread this...
Really just wanted to expand a bit on Eggies comments if I may.
I`m not entirely sure what being "English" means.Up until about the first Century BC the island was(for thousands of years) host to a multitude of tribal communities.The English label really has no validity until the 6th/7th Centuries ADish and even then-related to a small percentage of the population.Whilst I understand Eggies frustration regarding the denegration of the "English"-I would rather see the focus of such pointed squarely at the past and present behaviour of the English state-not the masses.I personally think this is a healthy exercise and about time too.I don`t do flags or borders and, critiscism that results in change for the better is fine by me.As an aside-Nelson....
Yep- a damned fine tactician and for a wee slip of a bloke, he had extremely large testicles, I have every admiration for the man(my family is related to Admiral Collingwood) but...here`s an alternative perception......the French had taken aristocracy/monarchy and associated silliness quite literally out into the streets and cut it`s ugly head off.Enter the French Republic.Nelson could be seen as a man who fought to the death in order to secure the position of the English aristocracy/monarchy.This all depends on who`s eyes one chooses to see "English" history through does it not? This of course relates directly to the thread, if we are to attract ethnic minorities to the discipline of Human behavioural studies, we need to borrow different eyes sometimes..............

[sniper]

I think part of the problem with being proud of being "English" is the negative connotations that saying it holds, namely Sun reading, BNP voting, flag waving idiots, who are actually no more English than any of the rest of us. The stereotype of probably exactly what nearly all archaeologists are most definitely not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but our profession seems to be one of the most tolerant, so why are we not attracting a more diverse workforce. I would be interested to know how many members of the public who come up and stare through the fences of urban sites and ask us silly questions are non-white? Is the interest there at all, is it being undermined by other factors?...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by judy

eggbasket ??????.Posted - 04/11/2005 : 13:40:01
The Chinese interpreted this as a communal meeting house where decisions for the whole community would be voted on. If this had been found in the UK there is a good chance that it would have been interpreted as the headman's hut, finds notwithstanding.

(A socialist thinking English archaeologist might have reached the same conclusion. NO?)

The argument of English Scottish Indian Archaeology is really poor because we are talking about mankind in general, they just happen to be on a land called England at the present time, and who knows what would it be in 3000 years.

If the topic turns personal with out any concerns for others feelings I might as well call it a day I thought I?m among open minded colleagues.

Judy,

Your point about the socialist is well made and may be true. My own opinion is that they might consciously choose to interpret the remains in the same way as the Chinese did at Ban Po, but they are probably culturally conditioned to think first of a more hierarchical structure. Your guess is as good as mine really and I reckon there are several books' worth of debate in the subject.

I think I see your point about the generic nature of archaeology but I do feel that it cannot be divorced from the culture and society that created it and that is interpreting it. Quotations about "recreating the present in the past" spring gazelle-like to mind. Archaeology in England is of necessity grounded in English society and used to examine how England came to be and how its society has evolved in my opinion.

I do hope that you do not consider anything I have said as a personal attack. That was never the intention and I hope we can continue this debate constructively.

Troll - you make fair comment, but consider the effect of the French Revolution upon the masses. At the time of Trafalgar, the French had replaced their monarchy with a tyranny that sought to spread its tentacles to all Europe. It is certainly useful to examine situations through others' eyes, but don't let that blind you to the reality of the situation. On the other hand, I definitely agree that we need to see all situations from the perspective of all participants. In doing so, we gain a more balanced viewpoint, and that is extremely valuable.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the ringing's in your head"

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Beer Beast
Only when all of the population of the country are included and integrated as a whole into British society will we see a greater number of non-white British archaeologists practicing in British archaeology.

I know I'm tip-toeing into a political minefield here, but here goes... Surely integration should be a natural process, not defined dictionary-like by Tony Bliar and governed by tests and legislation. Nor should it rely on the so-called native population of Britain giving up their Chritian heritage for fear of offending those of other faiths. Frankly the current wider debate on this topic seems to be profoundly mis-led and deliberately divisive. What we should be looking at is WHY the different population groups in this country are CHOSING to live apart. After all, as far as I'm aware, integration is not discouraged.

Anyway, are the British and their archaeology not the result of several thousand years of integration?

quote:Originally posted by Beer BeastWhen we break down those cultural differences and suspicions we may see a greater ethnic diversity in British archaeology with British archaeology conducted by archaeologists with a multiplicity of ethnic backgrounds.

As "Eggys colleague", I would describe myself as British, although my family is best described as ethnically diverse (Ireland, eastern Europe, france and more). I have never found it difficult to identify with 'British' archaeology because Britain and It's archaeology is also ethnically diverse. It's the archaeology of where I live and therefore interesting.

D. Vader
Senior Consultant

Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants

We are the consultants you are looking for

[Post-Med Potterer]

'Beer Beast' of Oxford makes an interesting point, stating...

Btw, I'm a quarter Spanish and three quarters English but that hardly qualifies me as a member of an ethnic minority.

Except that in some places it would do - in Australia for instance a person can claim Aboriginal ethnicity with one-sixteenth Aboriginal blood.

Integration is the French policy - recent evidence suggests that this does not work altogether successfully. Multiculturalism is the English policy, mutual respect for eachother. Seems to work a bit better (but then my perspective is white middle class).

[the invisible man]

Hmm, the usual confusion over the use of the words "ethnic" and "ethnicity" and the tendency to use them to mean nationality, skin colour, religion, language or any combination! John Collis discusses this well in "the Celts: origins, myths, inventions". IMHO an individual's ethnicity (or culture, if you will) is defined by one or both of two criteria: what you believe yourself to be, and/or what others believe you to be.

I tend to agree that the success or otherwise of multiculturalism depends on your viewpoint, and what you want to see, and could well be class based.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

I think I agree with Sith.Integration is a natural process and not a formalised one.As for "..native population of Britain giving up their Christian heritage for fear of offending other faiths.." I hope this is used to illustrate the absurdity of the "nanny" state-or simply the outburst of yet another challenged MP? What on earth is that about? On a point of order chairperson!-it seems to be a timely spot to remind people that Christianity is in no way "British". Syria/Palestine and large chunks of the near and middle east feature in the origins of Christianity.Of course, Britain has a long and rich Christian heritage.I think this further illustrates the rich multi-cultural past Britain would have been. Even before the advent of Christianity, temples to many other near and middle eastern gods dotted the country.And before that...
I just don`t see this in terms of ethnic minorities feeling excluded, perhaps that we have written a white history of ourselves?

[Dave-Bonner]

AT school I was taught, as part of the national curriculum (KS2-3 I think), topics such as The Romans, The Celts (whoever they were!), The Tudors etc. Never once was any understanding of who these people were ever conveyed, only a narrative (and a wholly innacurate one at that) of events that happened and people that occurred during a vague set of dates percieved to be the beginning and end of these periods. The idea of identifying any ethnic or even social diversity within these periods was never offered. Whats more, the opportunities to analyse them was never provided. They were taught because they were in the national curriculum.

Things may have changed (althought this wasn't all that long ago and I'm aware that in some areas it definitely hasn't). Perhaps if children were given a more balanced idea of the past based on [u]current</u> understanding of it (not to say that thats in any way balanced, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at) AND were taught a basic level of critical analysis rather than being fed innacurate ideas as fact rather than outdated interpretation (which it is critical to understand these narratives as....in my opinion[:p]) they might be a little better informed and able to assess ideas about archaeology (amongst other things) and its possible relationship to themselves and anything else as opposed to, 'that thing with men with long hair and woolly jumpers getting dirty on the telly!'

The down side I suppose is that they're obviously not going to become archaeologists once they critical assess the pay, conditions etc! But then again we all know what's required to want to become an archaeologist anyway.....[:p]

Maybe I'm trying to say that factory feeding ideas into kids isn't a good thing, and what other people are saying here about archaeology MAY (or may not) be partly as result of that, amongst other things! I'm merely suggesting its a contributing factor and that we shouldn't be percieving the situation as limited to our discipline, but at the same time the answer possibly doesn't lie purely with targetting ethnic minorities or changing archaeology to attract a more racially diverse working community (not that anyone was suggesting that).

BTW, that certainly wasn't a go at teachers, more just me remembering what I was taught at school critically (especially with what I know now). Could be a unique perspective.....Maybe times have changed enough......I doubt it!

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[Dave-Bonner]

P.s. A paper on the matter sounds like a fab idea! Sorry about the length.

D xx

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[rachstebbs]

What he said...