The Conservative Party

[Deleted member 77198]

Ethnically British would be Celtic.

This is an old fashioned and incorrect view.

Celtic was a culture, not an ethnicity.

Celts were from the north side of the Alps. Their culture spread around Europe but their genes didn’t because they didn’t really move in large numbers from their homeland. It was just that their culture did.

So, while Britons spoke a Brythonic Celtic language and had Celtic art, and the Irish had the same (Gaelic); next to none of them were Celtic. Calling ancient Brits or Irish people ‘Celts’ would be like calling modern Brits or Irish people ‘Americans’ now because we use US social media, watch a lot of US tele and films, listen to a lot of US music, and have seen a lot of Americanisms creep into our language.

Ethnically British would just be Britons.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Some very interesting points, do you not think it depends on how you interpret being English, is it a nationality or is it an ethnicity.

To be English in the dictionary definition means to be relating to England or its people, British in the dictionary definition is relating to, denoting, or characteristic of Britain or any of the natives, citizens, or inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Lammy was born in England and could play for the England team, yet we also have people such as Jofra Archer who was born in Barbados and Raheem Sterling who was born in Jamaica who do play for England. We also had white men like Owen Hargreaves who was born in Canada play for England and Chris Froome who was born in Kenya represent GB at the Olympics. This suggests both are possible.

Strictly speaking Lammy is correct in saying he is of English nationality, but not correct in saying he is of English ethnicity.

To some though to be English you have to be of white English ethnicity and be born in England, whilst being factually correct, it would mean Johnson wasnt English.

I get lost in this argument, because it doesn't matter to me, only because of my status as an adoptee , which means i have no idea of my ethnicity, all I know was I was born in Salford.

Strange all that though..... 'cos for £500,000 you can buy a passport from the Tories (especially if you're Russian) , call yourself British and avail yourself of all the benefits of Citizenship (even get appointed to the House of Lords) .

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Some very interesting points, do you not think it depends on how you interpret being English, is it a nationality or is it an ethnicity.

To be English in the dictionary definition means to be relating to England or its people, British in the dictionary definition is relating to, denoting, or characteristic of Britain or any of the natives, citizens, or inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Lammy was born in England and could play for the England team, yet we also have people such as Jofra Archer who was born in Barbados and Raheem Sterling who was born in Jamaica who do play for England. We also had white men like Owen Hargreaves who was born in Canada play for England and Chris Froome who was born in Kenya represent GB at the Olympics. This suggests both are possible.

Strictly speaking Lammy is correct in saying he is of English nationality, but not correct in saying he is of English ethnicity.

To some though to be English you have to be of white English ethnicity and be born in England, whilst being factually correct, it would mean Johnson wasnt English.

I get lost in this argument, because it doesn't matter to me, only because of my status as an adoptee , which means i have no idea of my ethnicity, all I know was I was born in Salford.

English is a language, not an ethnicity.

English was kind of once an ethnicity. They were from what is now Denmark and were called Angles. They settled in East Anglia, mainly, and other South East areas. But they interbred with the locals and over generations there was no such thing as English genealogically speaking. And especially not now, where almost every person with Angle genes (and Saxon, Jute, Frisian etc.) also have ancient British genes as well.

And there are many modern English people (ie. people who live within the borders of England) with little Anglo-Saxon genes at all. Their lineage has lived in what is now England longer than England has existed going back longer than the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain and have older Brittonic genes on the whole. This is because there was no great displacement of the Britons when the Anglo-Saxons came; some moved to Wales but most stayed put and were just engulfed into Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland and eventually England.

Unless some East Anglians have managed to only breed with other Anglians who were all part of the same tribes that came from South Denmark in around 600CE, I’d hazard a guess that not a single person in England is ethnically English.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Strange all that though..... 'cos for £500,000 you can buy a passport from the Tories (especially if you're Russian) , call yourself British and avail yourself of all the benefits of Citizenship (even get appointed to the House of Lords) .

Yep, this government's race report emphasises class as the deciding factor in life choices, and class used to be the one thing you couldn't buy, but now, with these gangsters in charge, it seems you can.

Change of sorts, though I wouldn't call it progress.

 

[The perfect fumble]

English is a language, not an ethnicity.

English was kind of once an ethnicity. They were from what is now Denmark and were called Angles. They settled in East Anglia, mainly, and other South East areas. But they interbred with the locals and over generations there was no such thing as English. And especially not now, where almost every person with Angle genes (and Saxon, Jute, Frisian etc.) also have ancient British genes as well.

And there are many modern English people (ie. people who live within the borders of England) with little Anglo-Saxon genes at all. Their lineage has lived in what is now England going back longer than the Anglo-Saxon migration and have older Brittonic genes on the whole. This is because there was no great displacement of the Britons when the Anglo-Saxons came; some moved to Wales but most stayed put and were just engulfed into Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland and eventually England.

Unless some East Anglians have managed to only breed with other Anglians who were all part of the same tribes that came from Situ Denmark in around 600CE, I’d hazard a guess that not a single person in England is ethnically English.

By that token black African is not an ethnicity.

West Africans are very different from East Africans and even in a country like Nigeria, a country rumoured to have been sketched out on the back of a napkin by Lord Lugard, it has over 250 ethnic groups, the most populous and politically influential being Hausa-Fulani 29%, Yoruba 21%, Igbo (Ibo) 18%, Ijaw 10%, Kanuri 4%, Ibibio 3.5%, Tiv 2.5%.

I lived in Nigeria and love the country very much, but I can assure you that if you were to tell an Igbo that he is not a distinct ethnic group, and point to the fact that migration and marriage and time and tide had obliterated his ethnicity, he would not take kindly to it.

My objection to what Lammy said is not that at its core there isn't a kernel of truth, it is that his statement could be applied to every ethnic group anywhere, but that does not obliterate ethnic groups, and it doesn't relegate them to being primarily civic in nature.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

English is a language, not an ethnicity.

English was kind of once an ethnicity. They were from what is now Denmark and were called Angles. They settled in East Anglia, mainly, and other South East areas. But they interbred with the locals and over generations there was no such thing as English genealogically speaking. And especially not now, where almost every person with Angle genes (and Saxon, Jute, Frisian etc.) also have ancient British genes as well.

And there are many modern English people (ie. people who live within the borders of England) with little Anglo-Saxon genes at all. Their lineage has lived in what is now England longer than England has existed going back longer than the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain and have older Brittonic genes on the whole. This is because there was no great displacement of the Britons when the Anglo-Saxons came; some moved to Wales but most stayed put and were just engulfed into Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland and eventually England.

Unless some East Anglians have managed to only breed with other Anglians who were all part of the same tribes that came from South Denmark in around 600CE, I’d hazard a guess that not a single person in England is ethnically English.

Yep .... I keep buying Brown eggs from the supermarket 'cos people tell me they're better .... but fuck me ... when I crack them open and put them in the frying pan they look exactly the same as a white one. What am I doing wrong?

 

[aguero93:20]

This is an old fashioned and incorrect view.

Celtic was a culture, not an ethnicity.

Celts were from the north side of the Alps. Their culture spread around Europe but their genes didn’t because they didn’t really move in large numbers from their homeland. It was just that their culture did.

So, while Britons spoke a Brythonic Celtic language and had Celtic art, and the Irish had the same (Gaelic); next to none of them were Celtic. Calling ancient Brits or Irish people ‘Celts’ would be like calling modern Brits or Irish people ‘Americans’ now because we use US social media, watch a lot of US tele and films, listen to a lot of US music, and have seen a lot of Americanisms creep into our language.

Ethnically British would just be Britons.

Britons were a Celtic race.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Britons were a Celtic race.

That’s a very mixed up and incorrect sentence. And it’s an outdated and incorrect view which has been historically and genealogically proven to be false.

The word Celtic wasn’t made up until the 1800s and they understood it and used it incorrectly.

Ancient Britons were not Celts

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Peoples of Britain

Uncover the fascinating ethnic and cultural history of the peoples of Briton. Assess the impact of the many invaders of Britain's shores.

www.bbc.co.uk

“Calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.”

The Irish aren’t and never were Celts

Our ancestors weren't Celts, they were copycats

Culture Shock Fintan O'Toole The first of a weekly column looks at a great Irish cultural secret: we aren't really Celtic and…

www.google.co.uk

“The secret of Celtic Ireland is that it is all bogus. There never was a Celtic invasion of Ireland or Britain.”

The Brythonic and Gaelic languages were/are Celtic, the art and jewellery and weaponry were Celtic. But neither the ancient nor modern Brits nor Irish were Celtic. What Celtic things they had were the equivalent of modern day cultural appropriation. Celtic culture spread and took hold, their genes did not.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Yep .... I keep buying Brown eggs from the supermarket 'cos people tell me they're better .... but fuck me ... when I crack them open and put them in the frying pan they look exactly the same as a white one. What am I doing wrong?

If the left continues down this path it'll be in opposition forever.

The right wing have built solid support in this country by dog whistling racist bullshit to a specific ethnic group, a group which one or two in here say doesn't exist.

Either ways, a sizeable chunk of something or other doesn't see it that way.

What's the left going to do? Patronise these people? Wait for them to die? That's a winning strategy!

So Labour believes we defeat the problem of ethnic friction, by denying the existence of the largest ethnic group!

How could it possibly go wrong?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

By that token black African is not an ethnicity.

West Africans are very different from East Africans and even in a country like Nigeria, a country rumoured to have been sketched out on the back of a napkin by Lord Lugard, it has over 250 ethnic groups, the most populous and politically influential being Hausa-Fulani 29%, Yoruba 21%, Igbo (Ibo) 18%, Ijaw 10%, Kanuri 4%, Ibibio 3.5%, Tiv 2.5%.

I lived in Nigeria and love the country very much, but I can assure you that if you were to tell an Igbo that he is not a distinct ethnic group, and point to the fact that migration and marriage and time and tide had obliterated his ethnicity, he would not take kindly to it.

My objection to what Lammy said is not that at its core there isn't a kernel of truth, it is that his statement could be applied to every ethnic group anywhere, but that does not obliterate ethnic groups, and it doesn't relegate them to being primarily civic in nature.

Black African is a race not an ethnicity.

All of those ethnicities are different ethnicities within the same race.