BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT

Subject: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:29 PM

From Today's Online New York Times:

English Irish Scots Are All One

Link should be good for a few days until the Times says you gotta pay!

This says a lot for culture's affect on us hominids

I guess when you have enough people living on a set of small islands you get a mass case of what we in Alaska call "Cabin Fever"

"The bedroom is mine, it has always been mine! Stay out until I need something from the kitchen!"

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Bert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:43 PM

If the Irish have the least 'invaders' DNA, how come they are the ones that complain the MOST about the invaders?? *Grinning and ducking*

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:06 PM

Oh boy, is the NYT in trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: bobad
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

Big deal we are all one

"Tear down the walls motherf**kers"

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:15 PM

Was this based on skull thickness?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM

Well, this is from the New York Times, after all. Many of us think that civilization ends where the Five Boroughs begins. The wiser among us are convinced that true USian civilization is bounded by the eastern slopes of the Rockies and the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada...with some allowances for the inclusion of Ecotopia.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:54 AM

There is a saying in the Middle East "Same face same race" Just look at the physiognomical similarities between nations that hate each other in that part of the world.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:40 AM

Shine on.

This has been my theory for years - I evanglised it in a recent thread last week.

From now on this is called 'Stigweard's theory of Cutural Migration in the Isles'.

Excellent stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Stu
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:41 AM

Of course, being totally uncultured I cannot spell 'cultural'. Bum.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Grab
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 05:36 AM

The Celtic cultural myth "is very entrenched and has a lot to do with the Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity; their main identifying feature is that they are not English"

There's a man who's seen Plaid Cymru and the SNP in action!

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:05 AM

Bert asks: "If the Irish have the least 'invaders' DNA, how come they are the ones that complain the MOST about the invaders??"

Well, you would hardly expect the invaders to complain about themselves, would you?

*

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:00 AM

I'm currently watching a series on TV called "Barbarians". Last night it was the Saxons invasion of what is now England. Alfred showed them a thing or three.
Before that it was the Vandals long running battle with Rome.
Next will be the Normans under Wm. the bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:22 AM

Well blow me away, just goes to show you learn nothing in the NYT everyday...*grin*
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:24 AM

Does this mean we've all got to join ETA?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:44 AM

This explains why I play flamenco!

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,?
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:53 AM

Cut me, do I not bleed?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:57 AM

I dunno, GUEST ?. Come 'round and we can try it.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:59 AM

The question of when the Celts arrived, and how a small number of invaders managed to imopose their culture and language on this vast population of Basques, remains unanswered. Some reckon it was the first agriculturalists 6000 years ago, some the first iron sword users 3000 odd years ago. Personally I think the sword theory is more convincing: "look, that's how you plant a cabbage, so speak Irish you Basque bastard" seems less likely.
    However, none of these theories answer the main question: is it 'crack' or 'craic'?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

I have little sympathy for the factionalism in the British Isles. In my view, they're all white people and they all speak English. What's the big deal?
-----
Why does every new group have to be seen as invaders? Sure, some were invaders. However, I suspect most people simply migrated, settled down and were eventually accepted when life in the old place became untenable. That's how my ancestors came to America.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:51 AM

Of course - nobody invaded America! Everybody knows that the Indians had an open-door immigration policy ...

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

"they all speak English"

leeneia ma dear..*smile* you knows I likes ya...but
You are wrong on that line and eh, we are not all white skinned.
Sorry jist hid tae let yi ken that..
Love and Light as always,
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

There are many versions of English spoken in the British Isles. That can effectively separate even North Londoners from South Londoners.

Small island, lots of people - leads to territorial atitudes unless there is a common bond, like the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:57 PM

'ain't no use in talkin' to me, its just the same as talkin' to you'


I think Abraham Lincoln said that

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:10 PM

Somebody tell me how to pronounce Cymru please... isn't that Wales in Welsh?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:18 PM

I think it is as simple as that a genetic predisposition to factionalism breeds more facts, er, um, factions.

A genetic predisposition to union simply breeds.


"know what I mean?"

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:27 PM

To pronounce Cymru, simply swap the "U" and the "Y" and add a welsh accent ;-)

... Awww come on ... we're all brothers now ... nyuk nyuk!

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:32 PM

Is Wales a Saxon word that means stranger?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 05:37 PM

Leenia, I don't know where you are from, but I can assure you that factionalism isn't solely a British phenomenon.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:23 PM

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. I know quite a few Basques and quite few Irish people. The basques are stocky and dark-haired. The irish are red-headed and thinner in build. (Gross generalizations I know, but fairly obvious ones all the same.) It's not about race or genes or whatever anyway its about culture. To whoever said that we all speak English so why do we make such a fuss about our differences- maybe the Scots Irish and Welsh didn't particularly want to speak English, and maybe that's why they are keen on a separate identity.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: mg
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM

oh gee...maybe they were forbidden by law to speak English. Maybe they were dumped with their languages on convict ships or immigrant ships to clear the land....

Irish I am descended from (and I take after the Cornish side of the family) are black-haired. Curley. Not thin but not really stocky. Square framed. I have never heard we are all Basques originally...interesting. I'm finding out my father's clan came from the Dingle peninsula which might explain something..not sure what...what the black Irish are...lots of DNA stuff going on here too..should be interesting. I had my DNA done on mother's mothers etc. Thought it might pick up the Native American part but it was European that stopped around Germany...never made it to the British Isles at all. I'm part Welsh too but I think on her father's side only...anyway, most of people with my DNA ended up in the middle east but a branch headed north. mg

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:19 AM

The latest models of British history (if I understand them correctly - big 'IF'!!) suggest that the old models which involved waves of invaders (Celts, Romans, Saxons etc.) displacing older populations, and settling the land, are wrong. What actually happened is that cultural influences came in from other lands and changed the indigenous cultures not the indigenous peoples. Sometimes those different cultures were imposed at the point of a sword (eg. Romans, Saxons, Normans) but the small warrior elite doing the imposing eventually either left of their own accord, like the Romans, or were absorbed by the native population (Saxons and Normans).
If you think about it the old 'waves of invaders' model was inconsistent anyway. According to this model Celts displaced 'Picts' (or whatever they were supposed to be) who, in turn, were displaced by Saxons. But no-one suggested that Celts were replaced by Italians, after the Roman invasion, or that Saxons were wholly replaced by Norman French after William the Bastard's victory. It's appears to be generally accepted that the Romans 'Romanised' the native Britons after the Roman invasion but didn't displace them - just think of that happening again and again throughout history.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:09 AM

I know an Irish lady who wears a basque....does that count?

can't testify to the blacka and curly hair, but I bet its in there somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:29 PM

Well if it was in the NYT it must be right, right?

And Leenia, a very large percentage of the UK population is non-white, and their first language is not English - maybe 25-35% at a guess. You might have been right (almost) if you'd made your statement 60 years ago, but today you're way off the beam.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

"I had my DNA done" -

Now how do you do that? I remember my mother used to get her hair done - still does, actually - an astrology enthusiast once got my chart done, I hear about people having their nails done, their legs done, their income tax done, their roof done - first I've heard of someone getting their DNA done -

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Lox
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:51 PM

You shouyld try it - you come out looking like a completely new person.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 05:25 PM

In that case, I really SHOULD try it ... !

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: folk1e
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:43 PM

I can go along with the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh being all one .... but Mancs and Scousers? NEVER! :¬D

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM

What an interesting article in the NYT, but reading through this thread's postings I wonder how many contributers have actually read it in full, or have understood it? The whole slant of the piece indicates that it is a theory to explain how the populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland seem to have so much in common genetically. Its not dealing in proven facts, not yet at any rate.

It goes on to say that the two islands were separated from Europe and each other thousands of years ago and both appear to have received their basic population from the same source. But since that era both islands' populations would surely have diverged culturally and in language. They would have been subject to various conquests by elite groups of technically more advanced people. The Romans never invaded Ireland although there was apparently quite a lot of trade, raiding, and slaving going on. The Anglo-Saxons never invaded Ireland although again there was much interaction between the two islands. The Vikings invaded both countries but their history in each country evolved in such different ways. The Normans invaded Ireland a full century after Hastings, and never in sufficent strength to more than half conquer the country whereas in England they subsumed the Anglo-Saxon nation. By the coming of the Tudor English into Ireland there was it seems almost total mutual non-comprehension between the two peoples. The elites of both countries regarded each other as barbarians as is clear from the accounts they left behind.

So we can surmise that it is overly simplistic if not downright dismissive to regard the differences between the Irish and the English as having no real basis. History shows us all too clearly how different they were and still are though to a lesser extent in our 'globalised' world. Jonathan Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels' satirised the seeming importance of such 'trivial' differences. Fancy going to war over which end of a boiled egg should be opened!


People don't stay the same. They change and most adapt to external changes. They adopt 'fashionable' new ways of dressing, of speaking and of living from what they see in more powerful peoples and they often wish to be more like them, even as the powerful ones deride their 'native' ways. This seems to be especially true of the 'bright young things' of the younger generations.

It was thus in Ireland, where for centuries there has been a powerful two-way pull between on one hand the glamour of being identified with the most powerful and progressive people - the British and now the Americans, and on the other, a need to assert the integrity of the Irish people's own world view. Modern nationalism didn't start in Ireland but its growth in European 'backwaters' such as Hungary, Norway and other small nations had a powerful effect as it tended to hold a mirror up to the Irish and to highlight their own subordinate position.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:11 PM

Thinking about it, could it just partly be that they are islands and therefore very coastal. The Basques used to sail all over the place. So did the Irish, the Cornish, the Veneti, the vikings the saxons, the belgae must have done a bit to come over in sufficient force to beat up the other tribes. Maybe we're just the product of a hell of a lot of sailors down the ages doing what sailors do. Probably totally implausible, but worth thinking about all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: mg
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:01 AM

I have found out that my grandmother's father's family..named Devery (other spelling Devaraux) might have been among the Devery's who escaped France during the French revolution. Also on the Dingle Peninsula, where my father's father's etc. family came from I was reading about Spanish ports etc. They have DNA for specific family groups even. I can't do the Garvey because that would be my father's side and only my brothers could supply that..so I did the Cornwall from my mother's mother's name and country. I wonder if their name was always Cornwall. Sounds like an Ellis Island switch perhaps. Well, when I get more astute at this I will let everyone know. In the meantime, if anyone can help me with the maiden name of Eliza Devery, married to John Devery of Clermont, Iowa...she was born in 1840 in Ireland and came as a child of 7 by herself. I don't know the family name and she never heard again from them. He was born around 1818. They show up in census reports. You'd think there would be a marriage or death certificate..well, there probably is but I haven't found it on ancestry.com which is about the extent of my knowledge.

Aren't the Welsh related to Hungarians or someone? Well, follow the DNA. I think the language is perhaps similar plus to Finnish. Welsh are interesting poeple. Now, when I get to that aspect of my geneology, the Williams...there are probably 12,000 Robert Williams and 12,000 David Williams and 300 Llewellyn Williams. At least it isn't Jones....mg

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:30 AM

Never mind which end of an egg 'Guest 08:51', what about an ear?
War of Jenkin's Ear
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Scrump
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:17 AM

I can go along with the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh being all one .... but Mancs and Scousers? NEVER! :¬D

Mancs and Scousers are all Lancastrians - never mind all that b&ll&cks about "Greater Manchester" or "Merseyside", these government jobsworths have tried to foist on us. They are part of the County Palatine of Lancashire and will always be.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

'Aren't the Welsh related to Hungarians or someone?'

No they are unique, they only marry their sisters. then they get jobs as Headmasters in Birmingham. they all sing in choirs and all their dad's were miners.

Apart from Anthony Hopkins and Richard Burton.

Dylan Thomas was a poet, but they don't think much of him. They think he was pretty crap compared to the poets who write in Welsh.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:06 PM

"Wales; land of my fathers, and my fathers can bloody well have it"

Dylan Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:06 PM

They sure could sing though. How did that develop? mg

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Irishsergeant
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

They need to go back and recheck their research. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:27 PM

leenia, you're absolutely right of course - there's no reason to fight with anyone over cultural differences.

But that's not actually what people usually fight about, but over deprivation of rights of one group by the other group. It doesn't matter if they're all white or all black or anything like that; it doesn't matter what language they speak. What matters is that one group suppresses the rights of the other.

Which can, of course, include the right to speak a particular language, worship a particular God or worship God in a particular way, own land, vote, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM

"They sure could sing though. How did that develop?"

According to an Italian-American acquaintance of mine, it developed because so many Italians went to Wales to work as miners. Seriously. (Same reason the Welsh claim to have invented the pizza, by the way).

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: gnu
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:15 PM

Well, of course they do (referring to the original article). No matter the "conquering" force, unless you annihilate the natives, or have enough of your own populace to assimilate the natives beyond "reason", they are gonna be the natives.

Now, as for politics, nationalism, religion, and WEALTH, they are all man made. Yes, according to genetics, Brits are closely related... um, like the rest of us humans. Unfortunately, some of us have a LOT of wealth, like it a lot, and are willing to kill whoever might stand in the way of us keeping that wealth... or becoming wealthier.

Sorry... it's Saturday night.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:21 PM

Linguistically they are the same, too. Wake an Englishman, Irishman or Scotsman at 3:00 AM and they all talk just like Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:22 PM

We now have a younger generation who believe they can have whatever they want, and it's OK to do absolutely anything to get it. Legal or otherwise.
G

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 08:26 PM

What on earth has genetics got to do with distinctions between nations?   Unless you're talking about Nazi type nationalism, where those things are supposed to matter.

I don't think anyone would suggest that at the time of the American Revolution there was any genetic difference between the British and the Americans (leaving aside the slaves and the Native Americans).

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: gnu
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:59 PM

And, generally speaking, they got fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 06:28 PM

I find it a bit worrying that mutual whiteness would be regarded as a reason for not fighting - it suggests that it's all right to hate our relatives if the bag they come is a different colour.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: mg
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 12:33 AM

well, seeing as America was a Dutch colony..with a lot of Germans originally too...mg

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: bubblyrat
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM

After WW2, Italy had lots of spare manpower, in the form of refugees and the dispossessed, but little coal. Belgium, on the other hand, had plenty of coal reserves underground, but nobody to dig it out. So a deal was done, manpower for coal, whereby Italian labourers dug out Belgian coal.They were housed in ex-POW camps and army barracks, and gradually settled down & married into the Belgian populace, and today,Italian is widely spoken in Belgium. I imagine a similar post-war situation existed in Wales, which would explain the numbers of Italian -looking Welsh people around today.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 05:35 PM

Subject: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: robomatic - PM
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:29 PM

From Today's Online New York Times:

English Irish Scots Are All One



My immediate response when reading this for the first time was "How very clever, they've managed to insult three distinct races with one five word sentence". Then I realised that they were even smarter than that, they also insulted the Welsh by leaving them out.

Macchiavelli eat your heart out, this might've started WW III.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

What about the Welsh?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Dazbo
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:27 AM

One thing that puzzles me about the "new" theories about elites coming over and conquoring the islands and converting the language is that:

1) Why did not the celtic languages die out after the Roman invasion?
2) Why did the celtic (or latin) die out when the Angles/Saxons/Jutes arrived (whom I'm sure did not speak the same language?
3) Why did English survive the Norman invasion (with many Latin and French loan words)?

What was so different or special about the Angles/Saxons/Jutes that wiped out 99.9% of the indigenous language? A feat totally beyond the Norman ruling elite.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Dáithí
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:46 AM

Interesting questions, Dazbo (to which I do not, sadly, have the answers!)
It certainly is the case that Latin replaced most of the continental Celtic languages (eg Gaulish)under Roman rule - hence the Spanish, french, Provencal, Italian, Rumanian, and other less-used Romance languages extant today. Why did that not happen in Britannia?
And what would a modern derivative of British Latin look and sound like today?
Dáithí

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Bee
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 08:06 AM

I would guess: not enough Romans in Britain to have overwhelming impact on the local language.

As for colour, somewhere amongst my books I have an old pre-WW1 British Officers Training Manual which refers to both Indian and Scottish troops as Black soldiers, which strikes me as very odd or possibly very enlightening. Reminds me also of an Apartheid era South African man I met at a party once, who was involved in a huge argument with some of the (mixed colour) guests regarding his own angry insistence that he was white and had the papers to prove it. It was obvious to anyone that either his ancestry was almost certainly mixed race, or that he had inherited such a remarkable collection of 'white' genes as to appear to be a living physical testimony to the common (and recent) origin of all races. (The argument had started because of his obvious, and spoken, discomfort with the racial composition of the party.)

The more DNA testing that is done, the more we find we are all alike, and all closely related.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Stu
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM

"1) Why did not the celtic languages die out after the Roman invasion?
2) Why did the celtic (or latin) die out when the Angles/Saxons/Jutes arrived (whom I'm sure did not speak the same language?
3) Why did English survive the Norman invasion (with many Latin and French loan words)?"


The answers to 1 and 3 are the same: The Romans and the Normans were occupiers and generally kept apart from the locals. Their languages were the languages of administration and ritual associated with an occupier, and so the ordinary folks kept their own language for the most part.

The answer to 2 - it didn't die out. A version of it is still being spoken in Wales (it is in fact, the most spoke 'Celtic' language). It was marginalised to the western fringes of the the Island south of the border, but as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles make it clear there were still 'native' Britons living in England well after the Anglo-Saxon invasions had finished. To my mind, this indicates a ruling elite that was speaking early English, whilst most of our ancestors were speaking something else. It was probably a very colourful and varied mix of languages and dialects across the country at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Dazbo
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:31 AM

Stigweard, but my understanding of one of the recently reported theories of the 'invasion' of the these islands by the Saxons was that a ruling elite came over and by one means or another changed the language of the local population. However, for this to be true it seems to me contradictory that the Roman and Norman ruling elites failed to do this.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Stu
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:54 AM

That's my understanding too Dazbo, but I suspect the nature of the invasions were different.

The Roman and Norman influx were both the result of military conquests. They changed the fundamental social, religious and adminstrative structure of the societies they imposed themselves on.

I guess the Saxon invasion was more cultural (as was the Celtic invasion before the Romans turned up) than military, and for whatever reason the local populace adapted to the new ways quickly. After Rome left there may well have been a social vacuum left that required filling for society to survive and perhaps the Saxon's culture suited the time.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:08 PM

We can't overlook the fact that the 'Romans' who came to Britain were a multicultural army, not settler families. Quite possibly very few were actually from the homeland of Italy itself, much less Romans. Their official language of administration was Latin of course, but the common troops hardly needed more than a smattering of that language for the carrying out of their duties as the regiments or Legions were ethnically composed. As for the conquered Britons, they would have only needed enough broken Latin to understand what was required of them - mainly not to hinder the Army's affairs. Those parts of Britain not conquered continued to use their Celtic tongue and some still do. I doubt if through the several centuries of Roman occupation the ordinary British people ever spoke Latin as their first language, apart from the elites of both conquerors and conquered.

The Anglo-Saxons when they came to Britain, brought over entire settler villages of families and must have had a much more localised impact on ordinary Britons' lives. Today's English language has the influences of all of this history within it to a greater or lesser extent. This is also why the French people today speak not Latin but a language that is a mixture of Frankish (a Germanic language), Gaulish and Latin.

In Ireland in these centuries neither Rome nor the Anglo-Saxons invaded, although it seems there may have been an influx of British and Gaulish people seeking to avoid the troubles in their homelands and the Irish mytho-history has stories of multiple invasions as one of its strongest themes. There was trading and commerce with the neighboring countries and Irish raiders would have carried off captives as hostages or slaves [how Christianity came to Ireland]. Several Celtic languages must have been spoken in Ireland in that era. In fact some Irish themselves settled in parts of Wales and Scotland as localised conquerors after the Roman withdrawal from Britain.

So, while the primitive populations of both Britain and Ireland were probably all from one source, arriving from Europe as the last Ice Age retreated northward 10,000 - 12,000 years ago, by the beginning of the first millenium AD the two islands and their respective satellite islets had diverged through the workings of their histories in both culture and language to the extent that ethnically they were no longer the same in any meaningful way, except to the stray genetic scientist who might have been around back then.

When I think about it, it isn't so difficult to imagine. I have some American first cousins of whom I know little or nothing even though our mothers were sisters, and I have more distant cousins who are German and Belgian who probably aren't even aware of my existence, our modern-day means of communication notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Dazbo
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 06:53 AM

Guest "The Anglo-Saxons when they came to Britain, brought over entire settler villages of families" the lates theory seems to be that this in NOT what happened but that a ruling elite (by some method I, as yet, don't comprehend) changed the language of the natives, not flooded them with English speaking immigrants.

I think the Roman Auxilliary units were ethnically similar but weren't the Legions made up of Roman citizens and/or volunteers who would become Roman Citizens after their term of service. Would not, therefore, the legions have had to speak Latin to a much higher standard than you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM

Dazbo, I think the Anglo-Saxons must have arrived in large numbers including women and family groups because if the menfolk had mainly taken Britons as wives the Celtic languages and other influences would have been stronger. It was the women who mainly reared the kids and taught them their language. I don't say that the entire Anglo-Saxon people left Europe but that the nature of their 'invasion' must have been something more than a purely military campaign. They were invited in after all, by the British ruling class, in a misguided attempt to protect themselves.

It is pretty certain, as I understand it, that the Roman legions that occupied Britain were from many parts of the Roman empire. Higher officers would have been required to have good Latin and middle-ranking officers would surely have been bilingual to a greater or lesser extent according to their responsibilities, but just as the soldiers of the Highland Scottish, Indian and Gurkha regiments of the British army often had little or no English, the common Legionnaire would have had no such need beyond a few words of command.

In my view a soldier would have been as likely to have picked up just as much of the local language sufficient for what was needed to do basic commercial transactions. As for a requirement to have Latin to be a Roman citizen, given the administrative task of checking it I doubt that more than basic communication could have been expected. Even today in immigrant societies such requirements are kept to basics and standards are often dependent upon the zeal of the examiner. Given the demand for a loyal population I daresay a retired legionnaire out on the frontier of empire, who applied for his citizenship and gave it as his intention to settle in a newly conquered territory with his local wife and kids, would have been given a wide margin for error in his Latin test.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:56 PM

hic haec hoc

okay, you got the job.....

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Dazbo
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:22 AM

Guest "Dazbo, I think the Anglo-Saxons must have arrived in large numbers including women and family groups because if the menfolk had mainly taken Britons as wives the Celtic languages and other influences would have been stronger. It was the women who mainly reared the kids and taught them their language. I don't say that the entire Anglo-Saxon people left Europe but that the nature of their 'invasion' must have been something more than a purely military campaign. They were invited in after all, by the British ruling class, in a misguided attempt to protect themselves."

I'm not disagreeing with you as this seems to be the simplest explanation and, to my mind, is not explained satisfactorily by the 'elite only' version hence my question.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Stu
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:40 AM

Well, according to Occam's Razor, all things being equal the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

But I'm not so sure. Obviously it was not just a purely miliartary invasion by the Saxons, but also in my opinion it didn't displace the numbers of Britons we have been led to believe - and this new genetic evidence supports this theory.

There are elements of Celtic and Saxon (and even Pictish) art in in many dark ages works, from the burial at Sutton Hoo to the Lindisfarne Gospels. This style, which is unique to early medieval Britain (which we would consider smack-bang in the middle of the Saxon's greatest strength) points to a continuous tradition incorporating many elements of the various cultures that have arrived over the centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: Dazbo
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:44 AM

Stigweard,

I'm leaning towards (based on some arguments that I've read and I like the idea) that there was a sizable "Saxon" population in eastern England before the Romans left and quite possibly a lot earlier.

Could it be that the tales of saxon invasion actually refer to an elite taking over a linguistically similar country? Or could it be that these were tales of an existing English invading the "celtic" west of these islands?

Subject: RE: BS: English Irish Scots Are All One Sez NYT
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:42 AM

Might also be down to allies and who was in the elites. The romans were friendly with quite a few tribes and allowed them to stay in charge etc. They were romanised, but maybe linguistically they held on to celtic as well so the elite was mixed. Ditto normans with some saxon nobility and clergy. (Although probably less.) I don't remember reading about saxons doing something comparable, but then I don't really know much about the saxons. Just an idea I thought I'd throw in