The Highly-Inclusive 'Ancient Brits' And 'Anglo Saxons' Of England... And the Highly Exclusive 'Scots'...
I remember at school in the 1970s being told by my history teacher that the 'Anglo Saxons' invaded what is now England, chased out the 'Ancient Brits', and took it for themselves. All the 'Ancient Brits' (a retrospective naming - they didn't call themselves that - they were not a unified nation) ran off to Scotland and Wales.
They weren't unified nations either, by the way. In fact, what became Wales much later was actually a hotbed of battles and rivalries between different factions.
'But how were the were the Ancient British driven out by the Anglo Saxons in England?' I frowned. 'There was no technology to practise warfare on that scale - or genocide. The Anglo Saxons' boats would have been pretty small. They were not arriving here in their thousands, wave upon wave, all at the same time.'
My history teacher sighed. 'Well, that's what the historians say...' he said. And that was it.
Of course, I wasn't satisfied. Were historians all asses? I wondered.
As it happened, some historians shared my logic, even back then...
Flip forward to the 21st Century, and DNA evidence proves that the 'Ancient Brits' didn't decamp in any large numbers at all. They actually married 'Anglo Saxons'. 'Anglo Saxon' is a retrofit, by the way. The newcomers didn't call themselves that. The mix of Ancient Brits, Angles, Jutes and Saxons produced part of the rich brew that was the early English - and is the basis for England, the country.
'But how were the were the Ancient British driven out by the Anglo Saxons in England?' I frowned. 'There was no technology to practise warfare on that scale - or genocide. The Anglo Saxons' boats would have been pretty small. They were not arriving here in their thousands, wave upon wave, all at the same time.'
My history teacher sighed. 'Well, that's what the historians say...' he said. And that was it.
Of course, I wasn't satisfied. Were historians all asses? I wondered.
As it happened, some historians shared my logic, even back then...
Flip forward to the 21st Century, and DNA evidence proves that the 'Ancient Brits' didn't decamp in any large numbers at all. They actually married 'Anglo Saxons'. 'Anglo Saxon' is a retrofit, by the way. The newcomers didn't call themselves that. The mix of Ancient Brits, Angles, Jutes and Saxons produced part of the rich brew that was the early English - and is the basis for England, the country.
What actually happened was something that coalesced within a few centuries into something called 'the English'.
Now, if the 'Anglo Saxons' ruled the 'Ancient Brits' (the 'Ancient Brits' didn't call themselves that, by the way) with rods of iron and imposed their culture on them, why were they marrying them within a century? Findings, such as at Oakington in Cambridgeshire, England, make fascinating reading. The intermarrying began very early on. The arrival of the 'Anglo Saxons' marked a great sea change here, but they would not have eradicated all other forms of culture already existing.
This throws up many interesting questions about the origins of English culture, which historians will be slow to grasp (don't rattle their settled view/offend any 'Celtic' sensibilities) but will, no doubt become a subject of more and more interest.
Now, if the 'Anglo Saxons' ruled the 'Ancient Brits' (the 'Ancient Brits' didn't call themselves that, by the way) with rods of iron and imposed their culture on them, why were they marrying them within a century? Findings, such as at Oakington in Cambridgeshire, England, make fascinating reading. The intermarrying began very early on. The arrival of the 'Anglo Saxons' marked a great sea change here, but they would not have eradicated all other forms of culture already existing.
This throws up many interesting questions about the origins of English culture, which historians will be slow to grasp (don't rattle their settled view/offend any 'Celtic' sensibilities) but will, no doubt become a subject of more and more interest.
But the 'Celtic' thing has only been in motion since the 1700s (applied originally only linguistically by a Welshman called Edward Lhuyd in 1707) and DNA studies show it to be a non-fact biologically.
It was never intended to indicate an ethnicity. But it got romanticised later.
It's the fusion of newcomers and old stayers which formed the original English. And since them, the inclusive nature of the nation has seen many other people of different origins joining the 'family'.
The 'Celtic' cross is NOT a 'Celtic' Cross. It is an ancient 'British' (although the makers never called themselves British or Celtic) cross which has been appropriated by various racist/nationalist groups in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland. These countries/regions were never even remotely related to any 'Celtic' concept before the 1700s. These racist/nationalist groups have been trying to appropriate a lot of the traditional folklore and ancient artefacts of this island to feed their 'White Celtic' myth. None of it is true. It is not healthy. And it is not ON.
Scots Nats and Celtic myth followers are constantly showing their insecurity, insularity and racism by trying to rewrite history.
But it doesn't work.
They really just show themselves up.
Wikipedia's pages on these 'Celtic nations', and things relating to them, are becoming embarrassing to read. Works of complete fiction.
For instance, an 'article' on 'Scottish' inventions, note not British, includes the caveat that it covers all inventions invented in Scotland, whatever the origins of the inventor, even if they're 'non-Scot' (sorry, if I invent something in Scotland it is my invention, not the country's, and I will have the patent), and all inventions of those of any 'Scottish descent ' - regardless of whatever else they are descended from - elsewhere in the world. So, they have it both ways. Be Russian and invent in Scotland and it's a 'Scottish invention', and have a Scottish great-grandfather and invent in Russia and it's a 'Scottish invention'. Now, let's say you are of English/Welsh descent but born in Scotland. That's a 'Scottish invention'. That is not inclusive. It is appropriating for fake glory.
It's all highly creepy and yet, at the same time, hilarious.
The 'Celtic' Cross has recently appeared in Stormfront literature.
Well, it's Ancient British (although we weren't called 'British' back then), it belongs to anybody to study and research, and its history does not belong to a couple of groups of elitists - Scots and Welsh nationalists/White Celtic myth adherents, both here and in "fantasy roots" ridden America and Canada - who have a severe chip on their shoulders - and a horribly inaccurate and exclusive view of our history.
It's the fusion of newcomers and old stayers which formed the original English. And since them, the inclusive nature of the nation has seen many other people of different origins joining the 'family'.
The 'Celtic' cross is NOT a 'Celtic' Cross. It is an ancient 'British' (although the makers never called themselves British or Celtic) cross which has been appropriated by various racist/nationalist groups in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland. These countries/regions were never even remotely related to any 'Celtic' concept before the 1700s. These racist/nationalist groups have been trying to appropriate a lot of the traditional folklore and ancient artefacts of this island to feed their 'White Celtic' myth. None of it is true. It is not healthy. And it is not ON.
Scots Nats and Celtic myth followers are constantly showing their insecurity, insularity and racism by trying to rewrite history.
But it doesn't work.
They really just show themselves up.
Wikipedia's pages on these 'Celtic nations', and things relating to them, are becoming embarrassing to read. Works of complete fiction.
For instance, an 'article' on 'Scottish' inventions, note not British, includes the caveat that it covers all inventions invented in Scotland, whatever the origins of the inventor, even if they're 'non-Scot' (sorry, if I invent something in Scotland it is my invention, not the country's, and I will have the patent), and all inventions of those of any 'Scottish descent ' - regardless of whatever else they are descended from - elsewhere in the world. So, they have it both ways. Be Russian and invent in Scotland and it's a 'Scottish invention', and have a Scottish great-grandfather and invent in Russia and it's a 'Scottish invention'. Now, let's say you are of English/Welsh descent but born in Scotland. That's a 'Scottish invention'. That is not inclusive. It is appropriating for fake glory.
It's all highly creepy and yet, at the same time, hilarious.
The 'Celtic' Cross has recently appeared in Stormfront literature.
Well, it's Ancient British (although we weren't called 'British' back then), it belongs to anybody to study and research, and its history does not belong to a couple of groups of elitists - Scots and Welsh nationalists/White Celtic myth adherents, both here and in "fantasy roots" ridden America and Canada - who have a severe chip on their shoulders - and a horribly inaccurate and exclusive view of our history.
Comments
Post a Comment