Please remember, that the Welsh identity as we know it in the 21st Century would not have been on the aristocratic radar of Victorian Britain – and the rest of the world was a different place back then! In fact, much of what we take as our normal day to day life in Wales – is down to political changes that are mainly post World War 2! – so lighten up – I really think you’re reading way too much into something that doesnt matter as much as you seem to think! If yours is to be a ‘typical stance’ of we Welsh (which I’m sure its NOT!), then Erin was right to raise the issue in the first place!

Cofion,

Ian

The rest of the discussion is fully on-limits, should others wish to continue it.

However, it does not take any particular genius to see that when Simon Dyda made what I considered to be a relevant, and obvious, point it was jumped on as somehow implying something. The agendas and suppositions then kicked in. I thought the only way to cut through that was to provide firm evidence to support the fact that BR considered his country to be England and his nationality to be English.

-

However, rather than leave it at a bald “You got that wrong” (something that I now realize should be directed at both author and editor) I then went on to try and explain that the “either/or” definition of Welsh and English nationality that we hold now could be considered in another, more subtle, way. The explanation I offered was intended to invite any that were troubled by Russell’s designation of himself as English to nonetheless celebrate and be proud of his connexions with and love for Wales, rather than (as was evident from some comments) think of him as exclusively English. I am only sorry that I did not make that point more clearly, so as to avoid the misunderstanding that is evident from what some have said in response.

-

I would like to add one more point that occurred to me as I was considering what David Llewellyn wrote. You will remember that I quoted this:

“As a patriot I am depressed by the downfall of England, as yet only partial, but likely to be far more complete before long. The history of England for the last four hundred years is in my blood.”

The strange thing about this quote is “four hundred years”. Why such a precise number? David noted that the Russell family rose to prominence with the Tudors, and the family maintained a position of power and influence from that point on. I’ve little doubt that the family would be able to trace its origins back further than 400 years, so Russell might be saying that his family was only involved in English affairs for that period, and that before then they were a Welsh family which had no influence on English history. If that hypothesis is correct (and I admit it is somewhat more tenuous than I would like, because it might equally mean that the family had no effect on any history before then) it would lend some weight to the idea that he considered himself to be part of a Welsh family. It would take someone with a better knowledge of him and love for his work to see whether this can be substantiated.

-

But let’s move on. If the point of the essay was not quite “what it said on the tin” I’d be more than happy to talk about how to apply some of his ideas to contemporary Welsh issues. However I suspect he would say that we would be better advised to think up some ideas of our own … but that we should examine and apply them with the same rigour as he did.

I commissioned, edited and headlined this piece. And, without wanting to sound offensive, I’ve been doing this job long enough to not care less whether a couple of readers, out of the hundreds that have read my headline, think it’s wrong. I think it’s fine, and so did the author of the piece.

I agree with Patrick (welcome back to the thread!) that it’s a shame we didn’t get into a wider discussion about the ideas of Bertrand Russell and how they may have been influenced by his relationship with Wales.

I personally would have liked to debate his pacifism.

He did have a relationship with Wales throughout his life, as I outlined in one of my previous comments – he certainly didn’t just abandon his nation.

It wasn’t the intention of the piece to prompt a discussion about how Wales influenced Russell’s philosophy (the point of the piece – for the umpteenth time – was to try and apply some of Russell’s ideas to contemporary Welsh issues). However, I’d be delighted if that was the route the thread took now.

That ‘s surely enough of an achievement for anyone. I’m no expert , thank god, in how one becomes ‘born and bred’ or ‘every inch’ Welsh or anything else, but I can’t imagine terms like that are of much use in this case or in many others.

Simon Brooks makes a valid point that it has to be possible to assess the man’s contribution to Welsh thought , or the influence of welsh ideas and culture on his thought. He’s also right to evoke people like Raymond Williams, who left Wales early but remained engaged with it , as a counterexample. You can be Welsh and uninterested in Wales, non-Welsh and totally obsessed by it, etc etc., which is why identity debates carried on in terms of identity politics are so pointless.

I am nonetheless interested in what, in Russell’s thought, might be construed as owing something to Wales or influencing its culture. No-one has addressed that, except Brooks and MH, and Adam by making the opposite point. That surely would have been the debate to have.

However, I think that accusations of ‘narrowness’, nationalism (or worse) against anyone who dares be sceptical about the welshness of Russell’s thought are indicative of the way legitimate questions of identity, belonging, etc are policed by people – on both sides – with axes to grind.

It is surely possible to question Russell’s inclusion and the terms on which that inclusion is offered, without necessarily being intent on ‘excluding’ him.

I fail to see why it’s more ‘nationalistic’ to question the Welshness of Russell’s philosophy than to attempt to appropriate both him and it. In fact, it’s just as ‘nationalistic’ to appropriate as to exclude. Do you think we can try ignoring both questions and address the man’s ideas as ideas?

I share Erin’s weariness with the question of ‘identity’, and I think it’s a pity the debate got bogged down in this.

To MH: Firstly I was not trying to “please” Welsh opinion, although I do believe the Welsh should be more aware of him and his brilliance. And why not be proud and celebrate? I believe there is something there to celebrate and claim. Secondly, you said many “Americans tend to think that one’s place of birth is much more defining to them than it would be to others.” This statement is as accurate and inaccurate as any other statement applied to approximately 300,000,000 people. At any rate, it doesn’t apply to me to such an extent that it clouds my powers of reasoning.

By all means, disagree with me on the point that he was Welsh if you like, but please not on the grounds that I was born in America, the irony is upsetting.

Forgive me if I sound ill tempered in this post but to be honest I am a bit weary of the argument, therefore this will be my last comment on the subject of Russell’s nationality. I think it is being looked at all too narrow minded. Why must everything be black and white, one or the other? Why must he be declared non-Welsh because he was not exclusively Welsh? The implications of this type of thought are disturbing. Clearly what this article has highlighted is that there is a great issue of identity in Wales that I think is rather sad. I do not think this question of identity belongs only to Wales by any means, its found everywhere these days, the backlash of a shrinking world.

I’d like to emphasise that this quote is not directed at any of the contributors to this debate, but rather on the mindset that in my opinion has missed out on some worthwhile points (Russell’s, not mine) while focusing on one issue. From Bertrand, of course, “A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

I’m grateful for your detailed response, but you should reconsider your early remarks. They come very close indeed to falling foul of WalesHome.org’s ad hominem rule, if not actually transgressing it. That clause in our Comment Policy for a good reason; namely because we want those leaving comments to address the argument, not what they imagine to be the character, background or motives of the person making it.

I am not going to enter into a lengthy debate with you about this, not least because the rest of your comment is a valuable contribution. But you should take the opportunity to clarify that you were not actually being as patronising toward Erin as your comments imply.

Quite frankly, does it matter?

I suppose it does matter, partly because of the way the piece was titled. But titles on the site are decided by the editors not the writers, so it’s not fair to point the finger at Erin (though I accept, MH, that you did not know that and are not seeking to say Erin is misleading anyone.)

It also matters because, by a peculiarly tortuous route, we have got into the philosophy of national identity. And I guess that’s why the flood of comments are still coming. This is of course an interesting area, but national identification varies over time doesn’t it? That may be especially true of a person born in Monmouthshire which has been an oft-debated area over the centuries.

“It seems evident that for a man born in 1874, he would use England and Britain more or less interchangeably. It is also worth remembering the audience to whom Russell was addressing” writes David Llywelyn. I think this is a pretty valid point.

Ultimately national self-identification as Welsh was possibly not as important in most of Russell’s lifetime as it is today. I don’t know that, of course, any more than anyone can produce a definitive answer on Russell’s nationality. But that’s the thing with philosophy and ideas: it’s all about debate.

For one I remain hugely greatful to Erin for writing a clever, articulate and thought provoking column. This one has been one of the real jewels WalesHome.org has ever published

In efforts to reclaim and understand sentiments of Welsh nationality, which has its roots primarily in self-identification, it is easy to overlook context. It should be noted that self-identification as ‘Welsh’ in the 2001 Labour Force Survey indicates that place of birth does significantly impact a sense of national identity.

For historical context, it may be interesting to note that the US Emigration service did not differentiate between Welsh and English emigrants until 1875, while the British Emigration Service did not distinguish between Welsh and English until 1908! “Thus, between 1875 and 1908, a migrating Welsh person was an English statistic on leaving Britain and did not become a Welsh statistic until landing in America,” according to Professor John Davies in his 2001.

It seems evident that for a man born in 1874, he would use England and Britain more or less interchangeably. It is also worth remembering the audience to whom Russell was addressing.