A few things I'd like to mention here:
Originally posted by kater
Grrrrrr lets not get started on this, I may explode
It just seems kinda ironic that in an age where independence is such a buzz word that some countries still don't have autonomy when they are probably more capable of running themselves than many third world countries who are claiming independence. Would America ever consider helping Wales become an independent nation rather than a principality? Didn't think so, I guess its one of those do-as-I-say not-as-I-do rules.
EXPLODES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very delicate and complex area but, in the early 20th century the US was morally very supportive of the Irish struggle for independence and was indeed where much relevant diplomatic activity went on before and after independence in 1921.
There were several reasons for this, the most obvious one being the huge number of Irish emigrants living there. There was also the fact that just a century and a half or so before this America itself had boldly separated itself from the British Empire. To this day the US and The Republic of Ireland are the only two former colonies of Britain that were so radical in their spirit of independence that they do not belong to the Commonwealth.
That said, and before anyone makes any angry retorts, I know that this same American connection has in many ways served to poison even furthur the situation in Northern Ireland by funding terrorists they know very little about, and their political lackeys (Sinn Féin is the wealthiest political party in Ireland both north and south for this reason, though it is far from being the largest party in the island in any sense.)
On the other hand, the involvement of the Clinton Administration in the Irish Peace Process demonstrated for the first time an American Goverment which was veered neither by overly sentimental attachment to the idea of a post World War II "special relationship" between Britain and the US (so beloved of Mrs Thatcher) or by the traditional knee-jerk anglophobia of certain Irish-American sectors of the Democratic party.
This intervention was good and fruitful, I think. Of course the American government is not a charity and any involvement abroad is carried out with the intention of reaping electoral rewards at home. An involvement in Welsh (or Scottish) affairs probably wouldn't provide this. Moreover, speaking of Wales there seems to be little practical desire for political independence there compared to Scotland; and full blown nationalist aspirations in Scotland are, in the modern era, a fairly recent phenomenon - mainly ever since the means to some sort of economic self-sufficiency were discovered under the North Sea.
It is interesting though that the least politically nationalist of the so-called Celtic Nations, Wales, is the country that has most successfully preserved it's language. Something Irish language enthusiasts admire enormously.
There seems to be a resurgence of expression of tribal ethnic identities all over Europe. Perhaps people often just feel hollow and cling to some sort of simplistic group identity in order to feel better about themselves, in which to lose themselves. That's one angle - another angle could be that national identities have never really gone away even though ambitious state projects such as the Soviet Union, the Spanish State, China or the United Kingdom may have liked to pretend that the dominance of one ethnic or national group would somehow cause these differences to vanish with time. They haven't.
Although the terms "English" and "British" are often used interchangably there has also been an increase in noisey expressions of English nationalism in recent years - witness how the St George's cross can be seen more and more often in place of the Union Jack. When I see this I prefer to think of George Orwell's decent and sensible English patriotism rather than the "Enguuurrrland! Everyone hates us and we don't care!" patriotism of the football hooligan and remind myself that no country's patriotism is intrinsically good or bad - but that pariotism in some form or other is probably inevitable.
This is a fascinating and stimulating area for debate but one that unfortunately heats tempers way too much. I hope my too long contribution has been more interesting than irritating!
