|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 4, 2023 17:55:35 GMT
The concept of ethnic and nationality seems to be interchangeable when it suits . When are the children of Mr and Mrs foreigner accepted as English? How can they qualify ? Can they ever qualify ? If they are born and raised in England, speak with an English accent, are culturally English then they are English AFAIC. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 4, 2023 18:05:19 GMT
The concept of ethnic and nationality seems to be interchangeable when it suits . When are the children of Mr and Mrs foreigner accepted as English? How can they qualify ? Can they ever qualify ? If they are born and raised in England, speak with an English accent, are culturally English then they are English AFAIC. Unless only ethnic English can be English then it can’t be any other way. Even if only ethnic English can only be English the problems don’t stop there . We will need an arbitrary definition of ethnicity. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 4, 2023 18:06:58 GMT
Mod Notice
I have deleted several posts in this thread - I would remind posters of the additional rules in this section so please keep all submissions polite.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 4, 2023 18:11:47 GMT
If they are born and raised in England, speak with an English accent, are culturally English then they are English AFAIC. Unless only ethnic English can be English then it can’t be any other way. Even if only ethnic English can only be English the problems don’t stop there . We will need an arbitrary definition of ethnicity. Well yes but I reject that definition of Englishness for both moral and practical reasons. It essentially denies the existence of English culture, value and customs. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 4, 2023 18:12:57 GMT
Unless only ethnic English can be English then it can’t be any other way. Even if only ethnic English can only be English the problems don’t stop there . We will need an arbitrary definition of ethnicity. Well yes but I reject that definition of Englishness for both moral and practical reasons. It essentially denies the existence of English culture, value and customs. How so? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 4, 2023 18:17:46 GMT
Well yes but I reject that definition of Englishness for both moral and practical reasons. It essentially denies the existence of English culture, value and customs. How so? Because it asserts that English culture, values and customs have absolutely no role in determining and defining Englishness. It enfeebles our national identity to such an absurd extent that a person's Englishness can be eradicated by a piece of paper. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 4, 2023 18:25:30 GMT
Because it asserts that English culture, values and customs have absolutely no role in determining and defining Englishness. It enfeebles our national identity to such an absurd extent that a person's Englishness can be eradicated by a piece of paper. I see ‘ Englishness ‘ as being raised in England and accepting and exhibiting an English culture . What else could it be ? Ethnic English people can be ex pats living in Spain , speaking the lingo and dancing the flamenco. So what exactly is ‘ Englishness ‘? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 4, 2023 18:28:11 GMT
Because it asserts that English culture, values and customs have absolutely no role in determining and defining Englishness. It enfeebles our national identity to such an absurd extent that a person's Englishness can be eradicated by a piece of paper. I see ‘ Englishness ‘ as being raised in England and accepting and exhibiting an English culture . What else could it be ? Ethnic English people can be ex pats living in Spain , speaking the lingo and dancing the flamenco. So what exactly is ‘ Englishness ‘? An English immigrant retiring in Spain has had 60 or 70 years born, raised and living in England. They can move to Spain but that act alone won't mean they were raised and shaped as a person in Spanish culture. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 4, 2023 18:33:42 GMT
I see ‘ Englishness ‘ as being raised in England and accepting and exhibiting an English culture . What else could it be ? Ethnic English people can be ex pats living in Spain , speaking the lingo and dancing the flamenco. So what exactly is ‘ Englishness ‘? An English immigrant retiring in Spain has had 60 or 70 years born, raised and living in England. They can move to Spain but that act alone won't mean they were raised and shaped as a person in Spanish culture. They dont have to retire to move to Spain . So what is Englishness if it’s not being raised in England and accepting and exhibiting an English culture ? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 4, 2023 18:33:59 GMT
Tommo Don't understand this quote dan. The first groups of humans began arriving in what is now England at the end of the last ice age. No one knows who these people were , or what language and culture they had , but they weren't Celts. Who erroneously refers to them as Celtic? me Nobody hopefully. But I wasn’t refering to the ‘first groups’ that arrived after the Ice Age, but rather to those of Indo-European origin who began to appear later, in the Neolithic. The people who arrived earlier, in the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic, were WHG (western hunter-gatherers) who emerged from the refugia after the last glacial maximum and (very sparsely) populated western Europe including the British Isles. But there are very few descendents of these folk around now. As noted, the overwhelming majority of the (native) population of England today are the result of three migrations from the continent, all of common genetic ‘stock’ but differentiated by language and to a lesser extent, culture. By the end of the 9th century then, the genetic profile of England had become fixed. Tommo How so? The genetic profile of a country is always in a state of change surely? Of course you also don't need a mass change in people to fundamentally alter the character of a nation… me I’m not talking about the character of the nation, but rather its genetic profile, as expressed in terms of the dominant haplogroups. In 9th century England the dominant (male) haplogroups were R1b, R1a and I1/I2b just as they are a thousand years later. None of the later wavelets of immigration, whether Normans, Flemish weavers or Huguenots added anything new to the genetic mix. I might note also that neither has the post-famine Irish diaspora. Tommo Eh? How so? You seem to want to selectively cherry pick some pure English stock to look up to in the dark ages , while ignoring all the rest up to the modern age. me Until the Jewish immigration of the late 19C and the Afro-Asian wave of the post WWII period all earlier waves of migration were of the same genetic stock (ie haplotypes) as the existing population. I would argue anyway that the migrations of the 19-21C have little had effect since there has been little racial admixture despite official propaganda which would have us believe the opposite. A similar if slightly more complex story applies for the matrilineal line, where the native population is dominated by four or five Mt-DNA haplogroups, all of which are considerably more ancient that the Y-DNA groups. Tommo Alfred was never king of the English. At one point , his kingdom was a swamp in Somerset , at best , he was king of Wessex. … me I never said he was. He did however style himself as King of the Anglo-Saxons which he in fact was after 886 except for those in the Danelaw. Tommo You can quote who you like , but the English language and literature is famous for borrowing. me I don’t know of any language that isn’t, even French although it is officially frowned upon. But the point was not about language but literature. What do you believe the English have borrowed and from whom? me Even during the Imperial interlude the English have always been the dominant group within the larger community of England and then the United Kingdom. Tommo Not sure that is true. It took five hundred years for the anglo saxons to carve out the country we now know as England (for comparison the germanic franks overran much of gaul in 50 years) for a good two hundred years the Danes were a dominant group within England , and then the native English lost that domination after the Norman conquest. me Once again we appear to be at cross-purposes. My use of ‘dominant’ refered to numerical dominance not political, the time period implied is the tenth century and after and the post-Conquest period of Norman (not French) predominance was both shorter and less profound than popular accounts take it to be. ok Danny lets have a look. heres what you said word for word... The last ice age in these islands ended 10 000 years ago and humans began to migrate here. We agree they weren't Celts. the neolithic period in these islands began 4300 bc to 2000 bc , and whatever humans arrived in that period weren't Celts either. so I asked for your source on who said they were Celts ? The indo europeans are a catch all term for a mythical tribe of humans who split apart thousands of years ago , with some coming into Europe , others going to the Indian sub continent. I believe your prime minister is a hindu , and therefore a descendant of the indo European people that went. to the sub continent thousands of years ago. I digress though. Can you clarify who you were talking about regarding the Celts? by what measure? the Scottish English Irish welsh , in fact all of Europe apart from the Finns Hungarians and basques are all descendants of the into europeans. Everyone of us speak an indo european language. you have lost me ? so what's the problem? Which essentially was only the English south and west of watling street , the roman road that ran from Chester to London but excluding Cornwall some of Devon and of course the welsh Celtic kingdoms. He was never king of England though , which didn't even exist in his day. that was my point. So he may have been variously styled as king of the English (and all the other description of the Germanics ) but like most of the English kings it was nothing more than an empty title. Even Charlie is styled Duke of normandy today , but in reality this has little meaning. well for example Geoffrey Chaucer , whom you earlier mentioned , wrote in the language of the Norman French , which today is called Middle English. The native English according to manuscripts at Oxford university spoke the anglo saxon , which by this time had become the jargon of peasants( according to linguists like Mario pie) and led English language ( anglo saxon rights movements) against the new French English , but to no avail. today , we both speak a language that is half French , 15 % danish , with much else borrowed into the language like bungalow or pyjamas ,from the Indian sub continent , then the vast majority of modern English , like Middle English , is non English including the literature that goes with it. Has much native English literature survived the Norman period? I understand it , even your parliament ( the lords) opening ceremony is still conducted in Norman French .words like passport , saying like beyond the pale , all come from French , and are borrowed into English diluting the language as to make it unrecognisable to the original natives and of course unintelligible. so does mine. You need to re read what I wrote. Numerically , its probably uncontested the native anglo saxons were the dominant group in what became England post the 7th century ad , but the English were not the numerically dominant group in these islands as I said earlier till post 1800. There were more Scots Irish and Welsh than English , and at points the Irish population alone was as big of not bigger than Englands. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 4, 2023 19:17:20 GMT
Everyone looked to the Scots during the enlightenment I think those days are past. im not sure about that sandy. Im having to gently come on a predominantly anglo forum and encourage the shy and backward natives to take control of their national identity in the face of British oppression. Think of it as a service rendered to those less fortunate not to have been born Scottish. Not really so as they are not shy and backward just programmed not to be assertive as regards their heritage and ethnicity most especially in the face of those who would say that what they believe they are is not so. It is spreading to Scotland with the attempts to remove Dundas from public view or at the very least to have plaques stating how he indulged in evil ways. In Scotland it has largely not raised its head but it will happen as the Scots are a sub group of white and it is white that is the overall target. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 4, 2023 19:23:52 GMT
The concept of ethnic and nationality seems to be interchangeable when it suits . When are the children of Mr and Mrs foreigner accepted as English? How can they qualify ? Can they ever qualify ? If they are born and raised in England, speak with an English accent, are culturally English then they are English AFAIC. How can you be English and also an ethnic minority, it seems a strange concept as Lammy suggested he had every right to call himself English but that removes from the English any identity as it is usurped by others. If we did not have the race laws w would not have this problem but we do have the race laws so everyone has to be identifiable in some way, even if they do not want to be. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 4, 2023 19:32:27 GMT
Because it asserts that English culture, values and customs have absolutely no role in determining and defining Englishness. It enfeebles our national identity to such an absurd extent that a person's Englishness can be eradicated by a piece of paper. No it does not, it places those as part and parcel of being English, I keep trying to say that the broad definition of an ethnicity would be one believing that one was not anything else and the rest of the same ethnicity believing the same. Ethnicity is an adaptation and assimilation becoming part of and modifying, in a very small way the whole. Like a white gene in Africa, lost in the general mix and overpowered by its own recessiveness but still lurking in the background. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 4, 2023 21:51:25 GMT
Sorry Tommo, we've both had our say and I have no wish to continue the dialogue down the usual ScotsNat rathole.
If you have a burning desire to do so why not start a new thread and let this one run its natural course which in all honesty is about done anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Dec 4, 2023 22:38:42 GMT
Talking of accents, i grew up in Cambridge and obviously had a Cambridge accent, it is distinct from London. I spent 30 years in Birmingham then moved back here, with a brummy accent, my ex was broad West Heath. I thought id got rid of it, but i havent, speaking to strangers recently they comment on my brummy accent, which i thought i didnt have, which is a shock. When i speak to Cambridge people who speak Cambridge, i switch into that with no effort, i can hear it.
It seems birth habits dont always dominate, Irish people in England never lose the accent, even in old age, so whys that?
|
|
