On London 2012 & patriotism

Boris in Beijing 2008

With the Olympic games coming up in London 2012, we here at Love (...) in a Cold Climate will have much to muse upon. I thought I'd start things rolling with an informal discussion on "Britishness" and identity. As @IdleHistorian has mentioned in a previous post, when Canada hosted the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics, we celebrated the successes of our athletes with such gusto that we managed to change a lot of minds regarding our "niceness." It's hard to forget all the flag-waving (I'm sure there's video evidence of the entire country cheering when Sidney Crosby scored the winning goal v. USA in the hockey gold medal game) or Nikki Yanofsky's "I Believe" on repeat for 14 straight days (NY's song still triggers a Pavlovian response of tears and swelling pride in me. Congratu-well done CTV). While others grumbled, many in the Canadian media were unashamed of the overt expressions of patriotism. In fact, the consensus seemed to be that those two weeks in February became a pivotal moment in nation-building. Canada emerged from a games with greater national confidence than ever before.


Will we see the same sort of unabashed chest-beating to "Rule Britannia" in August? Will Great Britain emerge from the games refreshed and feeling "all in it together"? It's hard to say. From the moment Boris Johnson received the Olympic flag at the 2008 games in Beijing, the public/ popular discourse seemed to express a sense of dread for 2012 more than any other sentiment. The chorus of doubters predicted doom. How would everyone cope with the eternal queues at Heathrow, the increased traffic congestion, and what exactly will the games cost? Many of these anxieties are on display in the BBC series Twenty Twelve starring Hugh Bonneville (who plays the frustrated and ever diplomatic Ian Fletcher) among other stellar cast members each skewering an aspect of the (poor?) planning and (dis-) organization that goes into making the games possible. It's a sentiment that is so well known that they even penetrated American pop culture as seen in an episode of 30 Rock where Wesley Snipes (Michael Sheen) revisits (reluctantly) his "settling-soul mate" Liz Lemon because he can't face returning to London for the Olympics. 


Are those who are anxious/ grouchy about the Olympics the same contingent that grumble whenever the royals decide to celebrate lavishly a birthday/ wedding? Or, is this like complaining about English weather? If the forecasts are correct, there will be a great deal of talk about the "rainy isles." Is this about managing expectations? Or, is the general population actually quite happy to have the world descend on the capital for two weeks? It will be interesting in the coming weeks to see the narratives that are constructed because, unlike Kate & William's wedding or the Jubilee, the Olympics steer the attention away from the upper echelons of British society to that of ordinary people who accomplish extraordinary feats. What image of Britain/ Britons will be on display? How will these Olympic games change those images for years to come?


@SloaneScholar1


My friend brings up many excellent point about how British character is intersecting with the Games in very interesting ways. (I particularly enjoy "Wesley Snipes" from 30 Rock ...)


I do think that grumbling and a general Eeyore-ish attitude are classic British. However, in reading the news as of late I note that there are many of the same complaints that riddled the pre-Winter Games here in Vancouver in 2010: corporate intrusion and copyright issues, worries about traffic gridlock and resentment at the special lanes devoted to VIPs and Games participants, concerns over security, general preparedness, and the readiness of the venues and logistics. There have also been some unique challenges in the UK - the security debacle with the private firm G4S and the weather to name only two. It all provides the British with reasons for even more hand-wringing; an excuse to decide ahead of time that it will all be rubbish and to make a joke of it. (See this episode of the great BBC segment OddBox about the rather fun Chap Olympics. One of the participants explicitly repeats the received wisdom that Brits are "rubbish" at real sport and therefore must succeed at making humour of it.)


I don't believe the whole enterprise will be rubbish at all, but the British compulsion to disavow all that is too earnest or serious, and to make a joke of everything, is deep-seated. As SloaneScholar1 reports, this approach was evident from the first instance of Boris Johnson's appearance in Beijing (apparently discombobulating his hosts with his unbuttoned suit and the famous disheveled hair). We won't try too hard, was the general feeling, but we will have fun and eccentricity and put a truly British stamp on the proceedings. And why not? "Team GB" may even manage the very unBritish feat of excelling at sport.


One cannot end such a post with anything other than a video of Boris Johnson proclaiming that "wiff waff is coming home to Britain":




@idlehistorian


The Great Exhibition of 1851 is often featured in history books as a singular event that showcased Britain’s pre-eminence on the global stage, while reflecting the state and character of the nation. (Spoiler alert: Britain was imperial, modernizing and ambitious. Oh, and obsessed with free trade capitalism, and not wild about the poor.)

Will future historians use the London Games in the same way? When scholars interrogate and mine this event to learn about the culture and politics of Britain in 2012, will this be they’ll find?

A reluctant patriotism?

Are celebrations of Britishness doused by a general feeling that it is rather ‘American’ to be overly ‘sentimental’ about such things, or is it the ghosts of imperial past that make chants of Rule Britannia seem inappropriate? The Royal Wedding and Jubilee saw Union Jacks out proudly, but those symbols are in keeping with monarchy in a way they have begun to conflict with ‘nation’ – especially as ‘Team GB’ contains three separate nationalisms.

A sense of nation may not be as strong now as in 1851, but neither are the actual workings of the state to physically pull these Games together.

Government Inadequacy

The security failings by the Home Office that have come to light this week are absolutely staggering. After seven years of planning and millions of pounds spent, two weeks out from the Games there are reports of MASSIVE failings in security. After being rushed in from other departments to ease the massive immigration queues at Heathrow, new Border Patrol agents have failed to screen active terror suspects. The Guardian reports that they missed as many as five in one day of actual (not test!) screenings. The G4S debacle would be comical if it wasn’t so potentially dangerous. But the biggest nightmare of all is the impending transport apocalypse that is about to descend on London. One minister said that it would be like 16 consecutive days of New Years Eve, football finals and Royal Weddings.  This can only have a dousing effect on Olympic festivities, and should lead to many outcries about how a system that already operates at nearly peak capacity was expected to cope with such a massive influx of athletes and tourists and journalists. Seeing the ramp up in transit usage two weeks out from the Games has turned me from excited ticket holder to firm believer that Tessa Jowell is The Biggest Moron Ever To Sit In A Labour Cabinet Ever for actually thinking London could host an Olympics. The infrastructure simply cannot cope.  

When the world comes to London, they may just find a city stretched to the brink.

London’s confused twenty-first century identity

I think they will also find a few different Londons competing for definition. There’s the Victorian skeleton of a former-imperial metropolis, an extraordinarily vibrant multi-cultural and multi-ethnic cosmopolis, and a busy hub of neo-feudal, global capitalism.

Whoever selected the terrible LOCOG logo seems to be trying to align the games with my favourite London: the multi-cultural cosmopolis. It kind of looks like it’s supposed to be a graffiti hash tag? Kind of? The fact that it resembles not much of anything points to the difficulty of defining contemporary London. Vancouver used the Inukshuk as its symbol (conveniently overlooking the repression of the native culture that created it) to represent Canada’s history of friendship. But London 2012 doesn’t want to be tied to a lion or union jack or any other symbol of obvious patriotism, it is a place with new ideas and new art and new cultures emerging out of the collision of old ones. Except that every time I look at the logo, I don’t get a sense that it is a genuine reflection of this spirit of the city.  I see the spirit of The City. I imagine a room full of corporate group-thinkers deciding, “Hmm, this looks new and different, and maybe even passably vibrant. This is the deliberate, generic brand we want use to market our city for global consumption.”  

And this is the side of London that will seem preeminent during the Olympics. The vehicles of corporate sponsors will be seen whizzing by the plebs in the designated Olympic Lanes, army officers will confiscate your off brand snacks and gear and credit cards at entrance gates to events. Pubs using the words “Summer” and “Olympics” in their sidewalk signs advertising that the games are playing inside will be liable to suits from theIOC for copyright infringement, and British chips will not be sold on Olympic grounds because they infringe on the rights secured by McDonalds to be the only fried potato vendor on the planet.

With the ominous Shard looming over London, there will be no confusion about who owns this city.

And with that… I’m going to try cheer up before I go see tennis at Wimbledon and get to stuff my face full of corporate sponsored strawberries & cream.

H.

"How long have you been cutting your own hair?": The Boris Johnson Paradox

Boris Johnson: For England
and the Bicycle

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson: former journalist, editor of The Spectator, Tory MP for Henley and current Mayor of London (elected in 2008 and sitting in his second term).

Boris is a polarizing figure in this group. There is no middle ground. We love or hate him (his personality, politics, penchant for Latin in everyday speak). And since BoJo has graced the shores of the New World with his presence (to promote London, the Olympics & his book), I thought it'd be appropriate to take a look at what he's all about. With that said, I will step aside for @IdleHistorian -- who, let it be known, was the first to appreciate his "special poshness" long before most other people.

@SloaneScholar1

As my friend alluded to, I have long been rather fond of Boris Johnson, or Bo Jo as we may affectionately call him. Adjectives used to describe him fall usually along the lines of "flamboyant," "colourful," and "comedian." Where does one even start? With video clips of course, which illustrate his "bumbling buffoonery" in all its glory. There is Boris Johnson declaring that "wiff waff is coming home," for the London Olympics & Boris playing football for England, & Boris talking about the Olympic velodrome being "lovingly rubbed" by British rhubarb (embedded below), & a Boris-Jeremy Paxman circus act (worth the long viewing) & Boris unveiling the new Routemaster bus. One could go on and on, but you know how to use the YouTube machine.

Of course the bumbling buffoonery masks his evident intelligence, drive, and strong will. One does not edit magazines and become an MP and then Mayor of London – often touted as a potential candidate for future leadership of the Tory party – without these qualities. (Despite his own contention that: "Beneath the carefully constructed veneer of a blithering buffoon, there lurks a blithering buffoon.")

Those who are less enamored of Bo Jo, of course, generally object to his politics, seeing him as a privileged Old Etonian stereotype – having smashed his way through the Bullingdon Club and straight into the corridors of power like so many of his class. But it is not only his typical “tory” qualities that rankle, but his charm and easy manner. I think that many feel almost resentful of his sense of humour and bonhomie. They understand the popularity this gives him (a virtual "cult of personality"), even among many who may disagree with him politically (comment espied on the web: "I despise the Tory Party but I like Boris." etc.). His detractors cannot, in essence, forgive him for this.

I think this is a shame. Bo Jo, in my opinion, is one of the few real (not the same as perfect) politicians on either side of the pond. This quality undoubtedly contributed to his emphatic reelection as Mayor of London in May. He does not attempt to hide his knowledge of Latin (there is a classic exchange with the equally-matched Jeremy Paxman in which Johnson uses the phrase ignoratio elenchi) or his Etonian and Oxonian connections. He plays the part of the Bertie Wooster-esque toff with panache. Some commentators have pointed out that David Cameron is actually much more of a toff than Boris Johnson yet, cringingly, he so often attempts to portray himself as plain old “Dave” – and the in-authenticity shows.

In tandem with appreciating Johnson as a “character,” I think his almost child-like (as opposed to childish) enthusiasm about his pet projects provides a breath of fresh air in an era when most politicians plot their every move by focus group. His choices are often iconoclastic, not fitting into any narrowly defined ideology. He has unapologetically stood up for bankers and the British financial sector (even if one does not share this conviction, one can at least admire the boldness). At the same time he banned loathsome drinking on the Tube, and has advocated transit measures that might be (in North America at least) viewed as vaguely “socialist”: bicycle-sharing in the city and improved bus service. His single-handed scheme to design, build, and bring back a twenty-first century version of the classic Routemaster bus is nothing short of remarkable. No focus group would ever have advised such a campaign promise, but Boris believed in it and made it happen.

For all this and more I am and will remain a Bo Jo fan. I’ve never had any problem with the old Etonians and Bertie Woosters of this world. While I would never wish to rescind the measures that have been forwarded on behalf of the common good and individual welfare in the twentieth century, there is nothing amiss with a little good-natured nineteenth-century eccentricity as well. We wouldn’t want unopposed rule by the Bullingdon, but on the whole, they do comparatively little harm.

Olympic Rhubarb Rubbing, in honour of the upcoming London 2012 Olympics:

@idlehistorian

I think that the @IdleHistorian will be getting a cheque from the BoJo camp after this post :D A "Back Boris" mug for the home office would also suffice. Stopping in Canada, Boris chatted with Amanda Lang (CBC) on The Lang & O'Leary Exchange . London's greatest cheerleader! Note: I received a text from @IdleHistorian that day notifying me that Boris was in TO and that I had to track him down!

Overall, I think he came off quite well on his tour of American late night talk shows. Both David Letterman and Jon Stewart couldn't get over his messy coif. And, a coup for any politician, he made both late night hosts laugh: he told David Letterman that the Jubilee flotilla was described as "one of the greatest aquatic triumphs since Trafalgar," and on the Great Soda Debate, "we, as a city, are not quite as fat." On The Daily Show, (Canada only) he assured Jon that refugees of the Mayor Bloomberg's soda tyranny in New York would have sanctuary in London. Extra large Mountain Dews for the "huddled masses"!! I don't think Dave or Jon expected such candor. If BoJo doesn't run for PM in Britain, he could stir things up in America.

@SloaneScholar1

Short on time this week I will simply add: Boris Johnson is the worst.

@CultureGatherer

Reflections on the Canadian Anglophile

What does it mean to be an Anglophile in a place like Canada? Ostensibly Canada, at least the English-speaking regions, still bears many remnants of Empire. Our British heritage, no matter our various individual nations of origin, is a common thread, even if often unnoticed. The Queen is on our stamps, banknotes, and in pictures in the Post Office - of course. The monarchy is respected in a measured Canadian way. We embraced Wills and Kate last summer without the cynicism of the Aussies or the Brits, and equally without the celebrity-enthusiasm of the Americans. These are the more obvious slices of British tradition. There are also cultural, military, and governmental ones. There is perpetual talk about the weather. A tendency towards self-deprecation. All this is true.

But for the true Anglophile, there is another level of appreciating British culture (beyond Jane Austen and castles) that often gets lost when conversing on this continent. The BBC Quiz shows: Have I Got News for You, 8 out of 10 Cats. The brilliance of David Mitchell. The significance of being a Daily Mail reader vs. a reader of The Guardian. The sadness of Nick Clegg. And the posh buffoonery of Boris Johnson. The vagaries of British transport. The controversies of Top Gear. The way in which rows over pasties become an art in political absurdity. The tabloids. The Royals. The Hooray Henrys and the Tatler set. The appreciation of sandwich shops, M & S, and how sometimes everything is just "brilliant" or "rubbish."

We three friends, the dramatis personae of this blog, seek to peruse some of these topics, in a probing but lighthearted manner. Because when it comes to appreciating British culture from afar, to borrow a slogan from Tesco: Every little helps.

(@idlehistorian)

Indeed, as my learned friend the @idlehistorian has articulated, reminders of Canada's ties to Britain are everywhere. But, until recently, it has never been apart of any government's agenda to highlight and impress upon our younger generations the significance of these ties. If our fearless leader had his way, our school children would be pledging allegiance to the Queen & country in the morning! Perhaps this is one of the reasons (outside of high profile royal visits) Canadians can be rather detached from this aspect of their identity.

As Time Goes By

This Anglophile's tastes were moulded by PBS  in the early 90s (WNED, Buffalo) -- basically programming aimed at ex-pats of a certain age -- which, brought countless British television shows/ tv personalities into my living room. I knew who Helen Mirren and Judi Dench were before Hollywood caught on and made them into "movie stars." As I cultivated my (admittedly) pretentious teenage persona, I explored the rich troves of British music (available through YTV's Hit List, which lulled in audiences first by playing cool Britpop like Blur and Pulp and then descending into the saccharine bubble gum pop of Westlife et al.)

Until the last 5 years (am I exaggerating?), it was difficult to be an up-to-date Anglophile. You needed friends to send you magazines. You needed to special order cds. There was no "British" dvd section at your local HMV and so you read about/ watched clips of new movies/ tv shows, that would never be picked up by international distributors,  rather than get the real thing. And, it occurred to me: the "British" culture that most people had contact with was a particular imagined variety that catered to nostalgic babyboomers. Now, thanks to technology and globalization (and Downton Abbey), Canadians can now quite easily access the full gamut of British tv, music, literature, news, politics now in real-time. We get, therefore, a more complicated image of Britain. Much less rosy than that seen through the lives of our favourite aged Holland Park couple. We live in happy times!

(@SloaneScholar1)

Calling myself an 'anglophile' makes me sound like I spend a lot of time loving up on myself. To describe myself as cattle, I am British born and Canadian raised. My family lives in both countries, and I split my time accordingly. Any dual national or immigrant can attest that when you are from two (or more) places, you feel like you belong everywhere and nowhere. One place inevitably changes while you are in the other, and there is always something you are missing. You are constantly, simultaneously home and away. (Is the title of that Soap much deeper than I previously assumed? Poignant!)

Who's got the bigger mouth?

I'm glad that I have fallen in with a set of Canadians who love the minutiae of British popular culture, and a set of Brits and Londoners who are internationally minded and weirdly appreciative of Canadiana.

The overlapping identities that come with dual nationality are always most apparent when I'm going through customs or meeting new people. "Where are you from?" becomes an existential question! Or at least an opportunity for a treatise on national identity, memory and belonging. (I am clearly hilarious at a party.) So, this is the charge I have taken up as an Anglo-Canadian: to be completely obnoxious about how great British culture is when I'm in Canada, and be oddly insistent about my Canadian accent and pronunciation when I am in England. (It's YouTUBE, not YouCHUBE.) I love hockey and cricket, Pimm's and Keith's, the CBC and the BBC. I hate Don Cherry and Jeremy Clarkson. I love Charlie Brooker and Rick Mercer. I will never pronounce it "aluminium." Lemsip is infinitely better than Neo Citran. Macaroni and Cheese should come in a box with powder. Eggs taste best hard boiled, covered in sausage and deep fried in breadcrumbs. So let it be written.

H.