What about when Giles leaves Buffy in season 6? His reasoning there struck me as very American (and what I consider a toxic side of that). Does his reasoning seem normal for someone British (or English, whatever)?
If so, then under what circumstances do people, at least close friends and those who have say a parent-adult child relationship, stick by each other? Or is it, much like the USA, everyone for himself, but you (at least everyone else) best be ready to sacrifice all for the state (and maybe church, both of which often get conflated with God)?
And TriBel, you seem to know history. At what point did this become normal?
I know much of Europe (and the world for that matter) once passed down estates and worked together (babysitters were typically relatives as opposed to employees) as opposed of "when you're 18 you're out the door, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you, and please don't visit until it's time to put me in an old folks home." (With a reply of like, "Yeah, that's great, Mom and Dad, you're just free money for me, and if I can't have that then I've got no use for you, either.")
And though British history for the most part hasn't been something I looked too closely at, it's my understanding that family names and where that fit them into society was once very important at least back in Victorian times, which I would presume would make them clannish (and thus obligated to each other, as well as very busybody to make sure they didn't do anything to tarnish the family surname they shared, like marry someone from a family that would lower their own status). My understanding was that this was the norm for about anyone who actually had a stable home life, though of course historians tend to focus on the best (or worst) so that what gets shown as normal was only so for the middle to upper class.
I'd also like to mention how an aunt decided to "teach" me how to swim by putting a life preserver on me (a thick one around my waist!) when I was 4 years old and threw me out into a lake (from a dock). I screamed terrified for her to come get me so she left (took a smoke break because she realized I was just going to cry for her if I saw her). I did eventually figure out how to peddle myself back to the dock, though I almost drowned (if I got too horizontal then the thick life preserver would flip me over so that I had to kick really hard to get my head back above water). They considered this good child rearing. (Though it's funny, they try to make me so self-reliant and independent, but by the time it succeeded so that I pretty much ignored their authority by the time I was 13 for the most part, seeing punishment as just an obstacle to get around, they were perplexed even though they made me that self-reliant, as opposed to obedient and dependent on them for survival, let alone care. Go figure.) Thankfully this doesn't go over well today (though I do think it's gone too far in the other direction rather than finding a sane balance), but I understand that it wouldn't have been seen as too abnormal in previous generations.
Would this have been seen as okay in British society or would they be scandalized if that happened? (If scandalized, what about in say the 1970s?)
Adding a bit more (because mods don't like it when it's divided into different posts), how would these sisters be seen in English society? Of course these are exaggerated for comedic effect, but plenty of Americans can relate to one or the other (and there are a great many other possibilities as well, and plenty of siblings either hate each other or ignore each other as much as possible while growing up). This is over by 1:20 (then it goes to a different story):
(It may seem the women in white are mother/daughter but they're actually adult sister/teen sister.)
Human nature - They believe that humans are imperfect and cannot be changed
Could you explain this more? I'm just not sure what that means.
Here in the US, there is a belief by many conservatives that humans are basically evil and thus a strong and harsh government to keep order by fear (in a harsh but fair way anyway, at least for those they view as part of society rather than the "other" within it who really should know their place through fear), therefore trying to curb crime by alleviating poverty is pointless to them, for example. (Strangely, this typically doesn't apply to the super rich who should be treated as saints and role models despite the perfidy of human nature...) In contrast, many liberals put the emphasis on society saying that if people are treated in bad ways by poverty and oppression then that will bring out the worst in them. Conservatives value retributive justice while liberals typically value rehabilitative justice. This is an oversimplification, of course, but I share it in case this is pretty much what you mean.
It's just that about everyone sees humanity as being flawed. How they try to check those flaws as a society (and sometimes what's a flaw and what isn't) is what's different. So of course everyone is imperfect.
And of course societies change. I'd think the Old Testament should inform many people who think the "nuclear family" we typically use in the west was very different back then, as were the standards of justice that was far beneath what the Enlightenment brought us. Very few conservatives would still promote actual slavery though it's endorsed by the Bible and was the world tradition since recorded history, so that's changed as well. So human nature can indeed be changed...to an extent.
Even Nazi Germany tried to hide many of its horrid practices, even from its own people. For much of human history they wouldn't have bothered (I've often thought of Imperial Japan as being medieval in their values given what they actually bragged of, only going to try to destroy the evidence when their war crimes tribunal began after WW2).
(I'm not trying to start a political argument here, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.)
Seriously, I get your point but look at Lessons. Giles – abandoned by his father (the WC), no longer needed by his surrogate daughter returns home to his mother – land. Here he can play the big-man, lord of the manor.
