|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 22, 2024 9:51:46 GMT
it wasn't the normans . Haven't we already agreed that the normans themselves. like the English were colonised? The Scandinavians did invade England , many times , including around the time of Hastings. So couldnt it be argued the Scandinavians were merely invading England in 1066 to liberate their Celtic and Scandinavian cousins fro mthe evil anglo saxon oppressors who had earlier colonised them from Germany? So 1066 was a liberation , not a conquest? No it wasn't. We have already made this point a couple of posts back. There were English soldiers in the invading colonising army . Many things can be argued which is in part my point, it is far more complex than a simple Country x colonised Country Y. If English soldiers were present then they were part of the feudal obligations as decided by the colonial power. Just as there were Native American fighters on the side of the expanding US but we do not say it was Native Americans that expanded the US. There were also Irish soldiers present in 1170 but they did not colonise themselves did they? ah! back to the `its too complex` trope when things get too difficult to deal with I see? You have implied through this thread the anglo saxons were some sort of poor oppressed people . The anglo saxons themselves were brutal colonisers , who invaded these islands , and spent five hundred years carving out land for themselves . They put their sick and disabled to death , were a brutal military society , caused the displacement and deaths of millions of native britons , as well as oppressing the natives as they were a brutal germanic colonial power. The Scandinavians merely came to these islands in 1066 , to try and liberate the oppressed , and then the anglo saxons , I believe , over a century later , encouraged their king in 1175 , and his mate strongbow , to invade and colonise the Irish as colonialism was in their blood. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 22, 2024 20:06:17 GMT
Many things can be argued which is in part my point, it is far more complex than a simple Country x colonised Country Y. If English soldiers were present then they were part of the feudal obligations as decided by the colonial power. Just as there were Native American fighters on the side of the expanding US but we do not say it was Native Americans that expanded the US. There were also Irish soldiers present in 1170 but they did not colonise themselves did they? ah! back to the `its too complex` trope when things get too difficult to deal with I see? You have implied through this thread the anglo saxons were some sort of poor oppressed people . The anglo saxons themselves were brutal colonisers , who invaded these islands , and spent five hundred years carving out land for themselves . They put their sick and disabled to death , were a brutal military society , caused the displacement and deaths of millions of native britons , as well as oppressing the natives as they were a brutal germanic colonial power. The Scandinavians merely came to these islands in 1066 , to try and liberate the oppressed , and then the anglo saxons , I believe , over a century later , encouraged their king in 1175 , and his mate strongbow , to invade and colonise the Irish as colonialism was in their blood. We are talking about in England in 1066 and after. What the Anglo-Saxons were is of little import but there is little doubt that for generations after the conquest they were in the true sense of the word oppressed by their colonial masters and not, as you try to intimate, liberated by them. You want History to be clear cut and simple because that way it creates the big bad English nation. Well it is not, the presence of English soldiers does not make the English responsible just as the presence of Irish soldiers does not make the Irish their own colonial power. What we have to look at is the guiding forces behind the invasion and it is clear that that power was the Crown of England as held by the clear cut colonial power in 1170 and the Holy Roman Empire. In your world everyone else gets a free pass because it was the English wot dunnit. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 8:02:46 GMT
ah! back to the `its too complex` trope when things get too difficult to deal with I see? You have implied through this thread the anglo saxons were some sort of poor oppressed people . The anglo saxons themselves were brutal colonisers , who invaded these islands , and spent five hundred years carving out land for themselves . They put their sick and disabled to death , were a brutal military society , caused the displacement and deaths of millions of native britons , as well as oppressing the natives as they were a brutal germanic colonial power. The Scandinavians merely came to these islands in 1066 , to try and liberate the oppressed , and then the anglo saxons , I believe , over a century later , encouraged their king in 1175 , and his mate strongbow , to invade and colonise the Irish as colonialism was in their blood. We are talking about in England in 1066 and after. What the Anglo-Saxons were is of little import but there is little doubt that for generations after the conquest they were in the true sense of the word oppressed by their colonial masters and not, as you try to intimate, liberated by them. . we are not. We were talking about the original point , 1175 , and you have scratched about in the mud ever since looking for every puerile excuse under the sun to distance England from the original Irish invasion and colonisation. The point of course about the anglo saxons is every nation on earth is founded by colonists. that's how they start. Just as the anglo saxon colonist became `the English` , so did the Norman French become ` the English ` is my point. your contention it took four hundred years is of course laughable. I made a simple statement that you for some strange reason took offence at. If you spent as much time defending our own country , instead of that of foreigners, perhaps scotland would be a better place. Unionism sadly is our cross to bear , for the movement anyway. Its 1175. Not sure why you keep chopping off the five years. Anyway , this is the bit I dont understand. we go back to the online dictionary definition of colony. England is not a colony in 1175. It's not under the control of another country. you have failed to show where a foreign crown holds England , as per England held and claimed ireland from 1175 onwards. It wasn't occupied by settlers from another country. The Norman French , 5 generations and 109 years on , were the English elite. back to you.? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 8:52:10 GMT
We are talking about in England in 1066 and after. What the Anglo-Saxons were is of little import but there is little doubt that for generations after the conquest they were in the true sense of the word oppressed by their colonial masters and not, as you try to intimate, liberated by them. . we are not. We were talking about the original point , 1175 , and you have scratched about in the mud ever since looking for every puerile excuse under the sun to distance England from the original Irish invasion and colonisation. The point of course about the anglo saxons is every nation on earth is founded by colonists. that's how they start. Just as the anglo saxon colonist became `the English` , so did the Norman French become ` the English ` is my point. your contention it took four hundred years is of course laughable. I made a simple statement that you for some strange reason took offence at. If you spent as much time defending our own country , instead of that of foreigners, perhaps scotland would be a better place. Unionism sadly is our cross to bear , for the movement anyway. Its 1175. Not sure why you keep chopping off the five years. Anyway , this is the bit I dont understand. we go back to the online dictionary definition of colony. England is not a colony in 1175. It's not under the control of another country. you have failed to show where a foreign crown holds England , as per England held and claimed ireland from 1175 onwards. It wasn't occupied by settlers from another country. The Norman French , 5 generations and 109 years on , were the English elite. back to you.? This is the stumbling block. You say despite the Normans invading from Normandy and taking the English Crown by force and placing those from Normandy in all positions of power and taking lands from the Anglo-Saxons and others after 109 years they were not colonists they were English; irrespective of the fact that the previous inhabitants were still oppressed and discriminated against, did not wish to see continued Norman rule and were violently put down in many insurrections; also despite the fact the original country was Normandy which was still in existence and to which the rulers of England drew monies from England to provision protection of Normandy as their home nation. Certainly Henry I did this, in a profligate manner, and Henry II carried on the protection and enrichment of Normandy through the payment of levies on the English. All that amounts to the clear definition of England as a colony of Normandy. It was this colonial power in England that invaded Ireland as clear indicated by the names of those involved as leaders of that invasion within which force the Anglo-Saxons names are at best few and far between and less obvious than the Irish, Welsh and Norman names. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 8:55:22 GMT
we are not. We were talking about the original point , 1175 , and you have scratched about in the mud ever since looking for every puerile excuse under the sun to distance England from the original Irish invasion and colonisation. The point of course about the anglo saxons is every nation on earth is founded by colonists. that's how they start. Just as the anglo saxon colonist became `the English` , so did the Norman French become ` the English ` is my point. your contention it took four hundred years is of course laughable. I made a simple statement that you for some strange reason took offence at. If you spent as much time defending our own country , instead of that of foreigners, perhaps scotland would be a better place. Unionism sadly is our cross to bear , for the movement anyway. Its 1175. Not sure why you keep chopping off the five years. Anyway , this is the bit I dont understand. we go back to the online dictionary definition of colony. England is not a colony in 1175. It's not under the control of another country. you have failed to show where a foreign crown holds England , as per England held and claimed ireland from 1175 onwards. It wasn't occupied by settlers from another country. The Norman French , 5 generations and 109 years on , were the English elite. back to you.? This is the stumbling block. You say despite the Normans invading from Normandy and taking the English Crown by force and placing those from Normandy in all positions of power and taking lands from the Anglo-Saxons and others after 109 years they were not colonists they were English; irrespective of the fact that the previous inhabitants were still oppressed and discriminated against, did not wish to see continued Norman rule and were violently put down in many insurrections; also despite the fact the original country was Normandy which was still in existence and to which the rulers of England drew monies from England to provision protection of Normandy as their home nation. Certainly Henry I did this, in a profligate manner, and Henry II carried on the protection and enrichment of Normandy through the payment of levies on the English. All that amounts to the clear definition of England as a colony of Normandy. It was this colonial power in England that invaded Ireland as clear indicated by the names of those involved as leaders of that invasion within which force the Anglo-Saxons names are at best few and far between and less obvious than the Irish, Welsh and Norman names. If England was a colony in 1175 , all you have to do is show which country was controlling it. you also haven't addressed the key element of the normans being the English elite by this stage. As for oppressing the poor , every English elite in history has done this to a lesser or greater degree. England was not a colony in 1175. Its a big problem for your argument sandy. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 8:59:20 GMT
we are not. We were talking about the original point , 1175 , and you have scratched about in the mud ever since looking for every puerile excuse under the sun to distance England from the original Irish invasion and colonisation. It was this colonial power in England that invaded Ireland as clear indicated by the names of those involved as leaders of that invasion within which force the Anglo-Saxons names are at best few and far between and less obvious than the Irish, Welsh and Norman names. Dont understand this point. Fitzgerald , de burgh , burke are all considered Irish names , as Bruce is Scottish . ...because the origin of your name may be foreign doesn't make you foreign? Is David Cameron English or Scottish to you? What about sunak? What nationality is he in your eyes , following your name determines nationality argument? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 9:11:50 GMT
This is the stumbling block. You say despite the Normans invading from Normandy and taking the English Crown by force and placing those from Normandy in all positions of power and taking lands from the Anglo-Saxons and others after 109 years they were not colonists they were English; irrespective of the fact that the previous inhabitants were still oppressed and discriminated against, did not wish to see continued Norman rule and were violently put down in many insurrections; also despite the fact the original country was Normandy which was still in existence and to which the rulers of England drew monies from England to provision protection of Normandy as their home nation. Certainly Henry I did this, in a profligate manner, and Henry II carried on the protection and enrichment of Normandy through the payment of levies on the English. All that amounts to the clear definition of England as a colony of Normandy. It was this colonial power in England that invaded Ireland as clear indicated by the names of those involved as leaders of that invasion within which force the Anglo-Saxons names are at best few and far between and less obvious than the Irish, Welsh and Norman names. If England was a colony in 1175 , all you have to do is show which country was controlling it. you also haven't addressed the key element of the normans being the English elite by this stage. As for oppressing the poor , every English elite in history has done this to a lesser or greater degree. England was not a colony in 1175. Its a big problem for your argument sandy. I keep showing that the Normans were controlling it as they had taken all the levers of power from the existing population by force of arms. Since you referred me to Wiki for a history lesson we could have a look at what that says about colony; colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule.[1][2] Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), which together have often been organized as colonial empires, particularly with the development of modern imperialism. This colonial administrative separation, though often blurred,[2] makes colonies neither annexed or incorporated territories nor client states. Colonies contemporarily are identified and organized as not sufficiently self-governed dependent territories. Other past colonies have become either sufficiently incorporated and self-governed, or independent, with some to a varying degree dominated by remaining colonial settler societies or neocolonialism. So it is never clear cut but certainly England was colonised, the descendants of the colonisers remained the power holders in their colony and decided what actions should be undertaken by that colony of England. The whole issue of course complicated by the Papacy which held a form of power over the colonisers in England who preferred/required permission from the Papacy for any act involving other nations/states/territories. I would just reinforce the point above "Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers," England fits that bill perfectly in the late 12th century. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 9:14:25 GMT
If England was a colony in 1175 , all you have to do is show which country was controlling it. you also haven't addressed the key element of the normans being the English elite by this stage. As for oppressing the poor , every English elite in history has done this to a lesser or greater degree. England was not a colony in 1175. Its a big problem for your argument sandy. I keep showing that the Normans were controlling it The normans are an English caste group by 1175 not a foreign elite. You haven't shown normandy , the region , was controlling england in 1175. So in both respects , your `England was a colony argument` in 1175 fails. You haven't proved your contention. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 9:20:01 GMT
If England was a colony in 1175 , all you have to do is show which country was controlling it. you also haven't addressed the key element of the normans being the English elite by this stage. As for oppressing the poor , every English elite in history has done this to a lesser or greater degree. England was not a colony in 1175. Its a big problem for your argument sandy. So it is never clear cut but certainly England was colonised, the descendants of the colonisers remained the power holders No one is denying England was colonised in 1066 by a group of continental people collectively called the Norman French. We are now 109 years on , 5 generations later , and im asking you despite the ancestry of these people from the continent( like the anglo saxons , Danes , Celts etc) why are these people not considered the English elite in your eyes ? Language ? blood? Culture ? please explain? It's a curious argument? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 9:22:01 GMT
oh , and dont forget the name discussion a few posts back sandy ? Im curious to understand this argument ? I have Never in my life heard anyone argue your name determines your nationality. Can of worms there. Anyway back to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 9:27:10 GMT
I keep showing that the Normans were controlling it The normans are an English caste group by 1175 not a foreign elite. You haven't shown normandy , the region , was controlling england in 1175. So in both respects , your `England was a colony argument` in 1175 fails. You haven't proved your contention. I see you just ignored the rest which indicated that it is not necessary for a foreign country to actively control the colony as long as it it is still controlled by teh colonists. Do wish to address that point or just ignore it? I shall repeat it "Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers," In the definition of colony it is not necessary for the home nation to exert power and control. The US did not cease to be a colonial undertaking with the declaration of Independence, certainly as far as Native Americans were concerned and that was getting on for 150 years after the original colonists arrived probably far more peacefully and less aggressively than the Normans in England |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 9:35:19 GMT
So it is never clear cut but certainly England was colonised, the descendants of the colonisers remained the power holders No one is denying England was colonised in 1066 by a group of continental people collectively called the Norman French. We are now 109 years on , 5 generations later , and im asking you despite the ancestry of these people from the continent( like the anglo saxons , Danes , Celts etc) why are these people not considered the English elite in your eyes ? Language ? blood? Culture ? please explain? It's a curious argument? I suppose the same reason that the British in India were always the British in India as defined by the Indians. Despite some being there for 300 years and with ten generations being born in India they were never Indians. If your rule is 109 years makes you native then India was ruled by native Indians. from 1765 to 1948 and that is clearly nonsense. So I do not think it is a curious argument certainly in the context of the times. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 9:40:27 GMT
oh , and dont forget the name discussion a few posts back sandy ? Im curious to understand this argument ? I have Never in my life heard anyone argue your name determines your nationality. Can of worms there. Anyway back to you? I did not say Nationality, I clearly referred to ethnicity. Names were quite distinctive in the late 12th century (as an aside were quite distinctive in NI and even now indicate much to the locals) and names that became something else arose from the original groups. Fitz as I understand is a Norman prefix along the lines of the Scottish Mac. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 12:16:17 GMT
The normans are an English caste group by 1175 not a foreign elite. You haven't shown normandy , the region , was controlling england in 1175. So in both respects , your `England was a colony argument` in 1175 fails. You haven't proved your contention. I see you just ignored the rest which indicated that it is not necessary for a foreign country to actively control the colony as long as it it is still controlled by teh colonists. Do wish to address that point or just ignore it? I shall repeat it I haven't ignored anything. The two parts to the definition of a colony , as per the online dictionary definition , that you have to meet to underpin your failing argument is 1. Show me which country , or region , is controlling England in 1175. Your post above is a tacit admission that you cannot do so. 2. show me which colonists from that country are controlling England in 1175. This is the crux of your argument. In 1175 , it is the descendants of the original Norman colonist who control England , n ot the original colonists themselves. By this stage , im saying , they are the English elite. back to you. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 23, 2024 12:20:47 GMT
No one is denying England was colonised in 1066 by a group of continental people collectively called the Norman French. We are now 109 years on , 5 generations later , and im asking you despite the ancestry of these people from the continent( like the anglo saxons , Danes , Celts etc) why are these people not considered the English elite in your eyes ? Language ? blood? Culture ? please explain? It's a curious argument? I suppose the same reason that the British in India were always the British in India as defined by the Indians. Despite some being there for 300 years and with ten generations being born in India they were never Indians. If your rule is 109 years makes you native then India was ruled by native Indians. from 1765 to 1948 and that is clearly nonsense. So I do not think it is a curious argument certainly in the context of the times. False argument yet again. For your comparison to work , you would need to show me normandy controlled England , the way Britain controlled India. You can't. You tacitly admitted it yourself. Indian people were British subjects , and held British passports. English people in the 12th century weren't subjects of France , nor did they hold French passports or French national identity. Now we have dealt with you false and yet again misleading comapariosn , can we please go back to the question. Can you explain to me why people of Norman French descent five generations after the invasion of 1066 weren't English ? What reasons specific to the 12th century make you argue they weren't the English elite of the day? Be specific? Language? Blood? culture? What? |
|
