[Buddha-l] What's wrong with a little Dharma?

[r.g.morrison]

Joanna says:

: Replying to Stephen's suggestion that the term "Briton" would do, it is
: equally obnoxious in some quarters of the United Kingdom when citizens as 
a
: whole are labelled British, since many Scots and Welsh people object that
: they are not Britons.
: So correct usage might have to be "UK citizens" when referring go the 
entire
: population.

Scots of my generation (WWII babes) have no problem with being called 
'British', and it is also quite correct.  Perhaps the modern generation 
object to this label, but there again with modern education over here as it 
is, this is quite understandable!  But they are (still) British whatever 
they think.  But Britain seems complex to outsiders.  Take sport.  In 
football we have all the British nations with national teams: Scotland, 
England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  But when it comes to rugby, the Irish 
for some reason unite, and we have an Irish team made up of the North and 
the Republic (who are not part of Britain).  But when they have 'tests' 
against the Australians and other southern hemisphere teams, as well as 
playing then as separate nations, we also play them as a joint team called 
the 'British Lions' (which can include non-British players from the Republic 
of Ireland). Then there is cricket.  Here Scotland and England have separate 
teams, but the Welsh play for England (not sure about the Northern Irish  - 
perhaps they don't play cricket!).  But when it comes to the Olympics, then 
there is only a British team.  What I really object to is reading some 
philosophy book that says David Hume was an Englishman!

It all really started when King James VI of Scotland became heir to the 
English throne and became King James 1 of Great Britain.  After years of 
keeping the English on their side of the border, they gradually came in by 
the back door. One modern example of this attitude is when they refer to the 
present monarch as Queen Elizabeth II, when she is in fact Queen Elizabeth I 
of Great Britain.  But then things did get muddied when in 1707 the 
parliaments of England and Scotland united (the Treaty of Union).  This 
happened when the Scots had a national economic disaster trying to settle 
colonies abroad so as to open their own trade routes.  The English seized 
their opportunity by offering to settle the Scots' national debts and giving 
then some trade routes, if they united their parliaments.  As those who had 
lost their money had the biggest say, the deed was done  But the Scots 
maintained their own separate system of education and law, as well as a 
separate church (the British monarch is head of the Church of England 
(Episcopalian), but has no say in the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)  And 
today it is all in the melting pot once again.  Perhaps one day they will 
all become good Buddhists!

Robert