December 17, 2017

American Anglofilia

Timothy Birdnow

There is an article in the Federalist examining the American fascination with the British Monarchy. It's an interesting read, but I think it falls a bit short. Americans are not just interested in the Monarchy, but in all things British; we've become a truly Anglofilic place, something that wasn't true for much of our history. Why?

First, let us look at some of the article by Titus Techera about the Netflix show "The Crown":

"So why should America, by vocation and war a republic, love a show about the British monarchy? It is not merely the great success of the show, but the alternative, too, that we should consider. There is not a show about Ike, nor Reagan. These men had achievements incomparable to monarchs of recent centuries, yet we cannot seem to memorialize them or praise them well in our culture."


End excerpt.

In point of fact there is a fascination with all things British. Look at the popularity of the show Downtown Abbey, for example. Look at the way women swoon at an English accent (which was described on the hit television show The Big Bang Theory as "the sexiest accent in the world"). How often are characters on television and in movies British? More than would be justified in American made products, that is for sure. And the news media never misses a chance to use an English accent for news correspondents. And let's not forget commercials...

America is overrun with love of all things British.

But this article is primarily concerned with the Monarchy. What is it about the Monarchy taht is so fascinating to Americans?

"The Monarchy Is a Point of Steadfastness Amid Change"

[...]

"In the lifespan of a man, there is so much striving for authority, and so many ambitions that seem world-spanning come and go, most of them unfulfilled and soon forgotten. The monarchy of England is so admired in America not because of pretty babies and attractive marriages—although these things make for great publicity—but because it is one unchanging thing in a world always in motion."

End excerpt.

To a degree that is correct. Certainly the British are not an overly attractive people, and the Royal FAmily particularly not. It is clear the Royals possess one trait that modernity is sorely lacking; venerable permanence. It is a celebration of tradition in a way that we could not duplicate in our land, because America is forever looking forward and change is the operative word here. We are all about growth, or used to be, at any rate, while the Monarchy in Britain is a throwback, a conservative element in a world that is ever-changing.

But if that is the reason for our Anglofilia, why don't we have Papal-filia? Certainly the Papacy is even more venerable and traditional, yet there aren't large numbers of Americans swooning at the Pope or those in the Vatican.

The author continues:

"This is the object of the show, to display what it means for someone to dedicate himself for life to being classy. This was most famously stated by the Victorian journalist and political theorist Walter Bagehot: government requires an efficient element, to get the work done, and a dignified element, to remind people that civilization is not radically in flux. The show emphasizes how difficult it is to be constant when everyone else is not, and what a price royalty pays for the people’s admiration."

End excerpt.

Maybe so. America has always suffered under a republican form of government because the Presidency is poorly suited to the role of ceremonial leader. How do you have great respect, nay, veneration for a guy who had to prostrate himself before the public to beg enough votes to take office, and then has to endure four years of abuse and do it all over again? The veneration of the Monarchy comes out of respect for the institutions while the American President is supposed to be what George Washington called the Chief Magistrate - a job in law enforcement, essentially. Nobody ever venerat4ed a sheriff. And the President can't put himself above it, not if he wants to get things done. Those who have tried have wound up one term Presidents with bad approval numbers.

Monarchs - especially in a limited Monarchy as in Britain - can put themselves above the muck of day-to-day politics.

Here's a good observation:

"One supposes this is because we do not have the examples of nobility we need. Well, royalty has merely a good batting average. One good brother is a dutiful king, the other a scandal. One good sister is a dutiful queen, the other has an affair that the press of a democratic age must investigate. The people love the miscreant celebrity about as much as they do the virtuous sovereign"

End excerpt.

I think this is true of the current Anglofilia in general. Part of the allure of the British is their almost Spock-like character. In Star Trek Spock was half Vulcan and half Human, and was beloved by the audience because he was controlled and emotionless on the surface but everyone knew he had powerful passions underneath, and suffered because of the dichotomy between how he was supposed to behave (and think) and his natural inclinations. Women were especially drawn to him because they senses a suffering in his character, and dreamed of being the woman who could overcome his self-control to arouse passion. It's the forbidden fruit, the thing which cannot be attained easily, if at all. It is the same appeal that married men hold for some women, the challenge of subverting a powerful bond.

The British - especially the uppper class - have always had this sort of dichotomy. They used to be about manners and self control and keeping up appearances while at the same time having strong passions, which they sometimes indulged in the most extravagant, even hedonistic, ways.

Here is more:

"Maybe there’s not much future in royalty and we’re hurrying to enjoy it because we know it’s on its way out. What princes today make a show of unimpeachable moral virtue?"

End excerpt.

Something to be said for that. It is perhaps the same fascination with the antebellum South, the Gone with the Wind effect. The antebellum South shared many features with the British upper crust, and there are many Americans fascinated by the old order, the society where your place was determined by birth and upbringing and not something that you could attain. There is a snob in most everyone and, of course, nobody has any interest in being one of the underclass, a cockney, say. You don't see televsion shows about coal miners in Wales, but about British Lords and other nobles. The same was true in the old South; we don't see movies about sharecroppers scratching out a living in the good old days. No. It's always about the rich, the ones in lavish mansions with slaves scurrying about their property while they sip mint julips.

It's much more romantic that way. And a big part of the romance is that is is a way of life "gone with the wind"". It's part of why the Kentucky Derby is popular among people who never watch a horserace at any other time of year.

There is also an innate desire for security in the hearts of everyone, and a society that is stratiated and cemented in the fashion of the British upper class, or the antebellum South, offers us that. We have a guaranteed place in the order of things under such a system. One of the great detriments to a society such as America, where we have no set classes, is that we may move up, but just as easily move down. A lot of people don't like that uncertainty at all. Liberals, in particular, hate it, and seek to use government to create a more secure, less chaotic world. While it may seem appealing to those who have never experienced it, it really is horrible for those who have; those outside the aristocracy are angry they are treated as second class, while the artistocrats are prisoners of the manners and customs that their class imposes. Step out of line and you may find yourself excommunicated, to become one of the pleibs. It has appeal only to those who are distant from it.

America has always had an inferiority complex. Americans were never accepted by "polite society" during the colonial period; our leading citizens were condescencended to as rustics, and that played no small part in the Revolution. And after that America welcomed in refugees and the discards of Europe, those who were not high society in their own lands. These "low brow" people creAted a new world, one where ambition and ability was more important than birth, and it was wildly successful. But deep down, the sense was there that, no matter how high one could rise in America, we would always be rubes and hillbillies. America ns have always wanted the status that the Old World alone could grant.

I think all of this goes into the current Anglofilia of modern America, and something more; internationalism. There has been a concerted push in this country (and the rest of the world) by the media, academia, and corporations to create a world system, a New World Order, where countries no longer exist, or at least don't matter, where we are all one big happy family. It's a dream devised by the Left going back a long way. And the way to make it happen is to reduce pride in one's own country while promoting love of another. With America it is to push Anglofilia. The British are our cultural and historical cousins, after all, and so it is easier to get us to place them on a pedestal than, say, a Russian or an Indian. So the news outlets go out of their way to hire British correspondents, the entertainment industry casts British actors and actresses, academia is quick to promote British scholars, etc. There is positive pressure to promote these European bretheren so as to break down our view that America is an unique place, one exceptional and to replace it with a love for other nations.

America is exceptional, and we should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be gained by Americans chasing after British culture and fads; they did little for the British except promote Muslim invasions, destroy the Christian culture that had once been so important there, and reduce Britain from the ruler of the Seven Seas to a laughable dreary island full of pasty, pale people with bad teeth.

Britain was and is the past, America is the future, a land of promise still. We need to remember that if it is to remain so.





Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1807 words, total size 11 kb.

1 I'm for each condition more pulled in by the cross mix sort base plans since they are consistently expected to cover each and every something. Visit inappropriate colloquialisms checker to check mistakes in work. In any case, cultivating a sound base takes a monster store of time.

Posted by: Jayce Cronin at January 15, 2022 03:59 AM (tXvBM)

2 Occurring of this screw up was associating with for all inhabitants of this zone. Visit http://www.sentencecorrection.org/plagiarism-checker-online-how-to-choose/ to do work in time . This Fatal RTA was epic for a colossal store of conversations in my old region.

Posted by: Jayce Cronin at February 08, 2022 03:20 AM (iphZV)

3 I have seen a goliath store of such individuals who don't follow proposing credits yet they recommending be the upstanding one. Click https://www.sentencecorrector.biz/correct-sentence-structure-checker-what-is-the-correct-sentence-structure-in-english/ to check errors in work. I'm so hugely drained on such people.

Posted by: Jayce Cronin at February 08, 2022 03:22 AM (iphZV)

4 At last, the figuring everything out clash of Arquideas Grant will be a few days. Visit http://www.sentencestructure.org/check-whether-the-sentence-is-grammatically-correct/ for more details about writing. I'm so amped worked with seeing made by others.

Posted by: Jayce Cronin at February 08, 2022 03:24 AM (iphZV)

5 My incomprehensible grown-up has been picked at the Ryerson University as an extra instructor of Philosophy. One enlist this nounchecker.com/try-our-professional-noun-checker I really need to acknowledge that you will like it. I paid special attention to that him to apply for this open way by researching the notification ahead of time from this article.

Posted by: Deejay at May 09, 2022 06:54 AM (jHcpB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




32kb generated in CPU 0.022, elapsed 0.9721 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.9645 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Let the Truth be Told
Newsmax
>Numbers Watch
OANN
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 77252
  • Files: 19023
  • Bytes: 10.8G
  • CPU Time: 227:06
  • Queries: 2763263

Content

  • Posts: 28373
  • Comments: 123979

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0