|
Pissflaps posted:I’d like to hear more about the Welsh genocide. Which one?
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I’d like to hear more about the Welsh genocide. Let me tell you about a guy called King Arthur...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Back when I worked on the deli counter at Waitrose a decade or so ago they'd recently brought in the first Red Leicester to actually be produced in Leicestershire for some years. I think, anyway. My memory's not what it was. But yeah, Red Fox is probably not Leicester-based. Yeah Shropshire apparently - really I was wondering if this is what Red Leicester is traditionally meant to be like, and we've just been getting super mild generic blocks because that's what people are used to
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Saith posted:Clearly since one side of that line committed genocide against the other. I don't mean this to sound dismissive, but what time period was this committed in? Are we talking about Edward the I or is it another time? Sorry to ask, I would just like to hear about it, sorry. Do you mean culturally? Like with the refusal to teach the Welsh language? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
If your cheddar and cheddar-like cheeses don’t crumble and burn your mouth slightly then they are bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Saith posted:Which one? The most relevant one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:If your cheddar and cheddar-like cheeses don’t crumble and burn your mouth slightly then they are bad If it doesn't have grit, it's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
I’m still furious about the Harrowing of the North.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I’m still furious about the Harrowing of the North. Very upset at the Viking conquest of Northumbria here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I’m still furious about the Harrowing of the North.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I don't mean this to sound dismissive, but what time period was this committed in? Are we talking about Edward the I or is it another time? I'm mostly talking about the systematic destruction of our language and culture, one example of thus being the Welsh Not where children were publicly beaten and humiliated for speaking Welsh (it even progressed into some hosed up social torture-control poo poo that encouraged the kids to sell one another out). I'm using the word genocide emotively here. For an example of an actual genocide, you can look at the Saxon invasions and the process by which a landmass inhabited by Britons was cleared for living space and the survivors managed to cling on only to the most western reaches of the island. Welsh means foreigner in old-German - I have a feeling xenophobia is the only thing at the heart of the English psyche.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Pay your foederati and they won't take your poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
I have distinctly Scandinavian looks and happened to be born in Northern Ireland. Which ancient invaders should I be pure livid with, please?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
drat those accursed Saxons
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
crispix posted:I have distinctly Scandinavian looks and happened to be born in Northern Ireland. Which ancient invaders should I be pure livid with, please? I suspect that’d be yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Where did all these English cunts come from, and can they gently caress off back there please?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I would reluctantly accept repatriation to Germany.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it was England that made the English There is no escape
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Saith posted:I'm mostly talking about the systematic destruction of our language and culture, one example of thus being the Welsh Not where children were publicly beaten and humiliated for speaking Welsh (it even progressed into some hosed up social torture-control poo poo that encouraged the kids to sell one another out). I'm using the word genocide emotively here. That is fair enough, I did think it was something like that (hence the inclusion of the clarification upthread) but thank you for expanding on this I do think that it can be somewhat reductive to claim people and Nation are one and the same when it comes to being part of a "National Psyche". Could you expand more on this, if you have the time/would like to? Thanks again for the information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
So was there a genocide against the Welsh by the English or is this Saxon on Celtic deathmatches
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Saith posted:I have a feeling xenophobia is the only thing at the heart of the English psyche. There's also a high overlap between people saying "I'm British not European!" and "European-American Unity and Rights!" and terrible people though, but they're a smaller number.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Saith posted:For an example of an actual genocide, you can look at the Saxon invasions and the process by which a landmass inhabited by Britons was cleared for living space and the survivors managed to cling on only to the most western reaches of the island.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I’d like to hear more about the Welsh genocide. There's no real evidence that the English ordered the mass execution of Welsh people. They didn't like to leave a paper trail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:There's no real evidence that the English ordered the mass execution of Welsh people. They didn't like to leave a paper trail. Lol nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
As a quick question to the entire thread, would you all agree that there is such a thing as a "national psyche"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Also, how many of the Britons were, for the most part "Britons"? Did the saxons genuinelly have enough people to take all the land, or was that where there was intermixing? Nationalities are a risky thing to be throwing about in Ye Olde Dark Ages, but linguistically, the Brythonic languages (Welsh/Cornish/Cumbric/Pictish/Breton) represent variants of the pre-Saxon Celtic languages of Britain (Scots Gaelic is of the Irish clade of Celtic languages). Most analyses of the Germanic invasions imply that mass population movement occurred: unlike say the Norse invasions where buff axe dudes show up, decide this is a great place for a vik and settle on their own initiative. The details of this, however, remain somewhat in dispute. To answer your question, it's reasonable to suppose there was some intermarriage and what's known as 'acculturation', where a subordinate ethnic/cultural group adopts the traits of the dominant one in order to have equal access to resources, power, etc.: you don't need to literally kill everybody to kill a culture, you just have to make that language/mode of dress/way of living really inconvenient to have. You see this in Scotland, where the Scottish elites (who were pretty much all Norman anyway thanks to David I, and were heavily intermarried across the border even in the 13th century) essentially learned English if they didn't already know it, softened their accents and slotted themselves into the Imperial apparatus without much hassle. Wales, however, experienced an almost complete eviction of their own elites during Edward's conquest: he placed Norman lords of his own there rather than making a deal with local Welsh lords. This wasn't a 100% job - Henry VII Tudor was related to Llywelyn the Great somehow, I forget the details - but it was certainly an abolition of local power structures that Britain hadn't seen on that scale since the fall of Rome. Welsh, oddly enough, is unusual not in that it was genocided, with the language forbidden at various times etc., it's that it wasn't, unlike almost all its relatives: Cornish is only alive on paper, Cumbric has been dead eight hundred years, and that's not accounting for the other regional languages that would have been spoken in areas that, uh, didn't really survive the Germanic invasions. Welsh itself survived partly because it was the most remote and also because it successfully replaced Latin in local religious rites from about the 15th century onwards. That being said, whilst people back then probably put the same value on language, identity etc. as we do, the idea of distinct ethno-states would have made no sense whatsoever to them - they'd really be fine if you just let them go to the market on Sundays and maybe didn't conscript their sons e: forgot Breton, like a chump Obliterati fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:As a quick question to the entire thread, would you all agree that there is such a thing as a "national psyche"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Saith posted:For an example of an actual genocide, you can look at the Saxon invasions and the process by which a landmass inhabited by Britons was cleared for living space and the survivors managed to cling on only to the most western reaches of the island. Isn’t the displacement of the Britons one of those things that’s quite hotly debated academically? I was under the impression the current view is that that while there’s some places (southeast England especially) where there was a significant influx of migrants (which I realise is a euphemism for invasion) in much of the rest of the country the people farming the turnips stayed the same, it was the aristos and the language and culture that changed. Edit: Thought I remembered there being a genetic study on this sort of thing recently, here it is: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-really-are-genetic-map-british-isles Owlkill fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Whilst people back then probably put the same value on language, identity etc. as we do, the idea of distinct ethno-states would have made no sense whatsoever to them - they'd really be fine if you just let them go to the market on Sundays and maybe didn't conscript their sons Would it be fairer to describe "states" back then as more cultural accumulations rather than ethno/ socio-political ones? Also thank you for the information! Owlkill posted:Isn’t the displacement of the Britons one of those things that’s quite hotly debated academically? I was under the impression the current view is that that while there’s some places (southeast England especially) where there was a significant influx of migrants (which I realise is a euphemism for invasion) in much of the rest of the country the people farming the turnips stayed the same, it was the aristos and the language and culture that changed. I think we might both be confusing our invasions. I know that this was pretty much the case in the Danelaw regions/time period, but I was unsure about the migrations. Also I get confused with my Migrations. jBrereton posted:There are certainly stock references that the people living in specific places are imparted with through education. But to me "psyche" seems to be a more generic term and regarding it as a "national" thing seems somewhat limiting, but I take your point. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Would it be fairer to describe "states" back then as more cultural accumulations rather than ethno/ socio-political ones? Depends. To be honest in this time and place calling the various Saxon/Brythonic polities 'states' is misleading. Especially in the context of the Migration Period, which this event is just the tail end of, we're dealing with bands/tribes in the range 10,000 - 100,000 including non-combatants. We also know of incidents where smaller groups met and were subsumed by larger ones whilst on the move, and of course the Germanic invasion of Britain is, traditionally, a three tribe affair (no love for Angles or Jutes in this thread, I see). We don't know a huge amount of how leaders arose and how these moving bands were organised, but we do know that they weren't living in this fashion before they started moving so you can assume things were a little bit ad hoc. They're organisationally uncomparable to Rome, where being a 'citizen' was a definite legal concept that had no relation to ethnicity. Remember that all our records of this time period are written by people who: a) lived their entire lives in authoritarian top-down states with names b) got their information second-hand at best, third/fourth/completely fictional at worst c) were poo poo scared of these guys and weren't really willing to walk up to them and ask for clarification on their backstory What Latin and British chroniclers described as 'the Saxons' was probably more a whole bunch of various Germanic tribes that broadly, for the sake of convenience, didn't get too angry if you called them Saxons and happened to be currently following dudes who were (probably) Saxons. As for the Romano-British and the unRomanised Britons, we know next to nothing: we have very little on them after the Roman military withdrawal in 407 other than increasingly shrill requests for them to come back. Long story short: gently caress knows, this time period is mainly distinguished by how obvious it is that everyone is desperately improvising Apologies if this is rambling, by the way, did I mention I fukken love past things In the interests of overall thread balance, gently caress ye, ye Sassenach cunts
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Apologies if this is rambling, by the way, did I mention I fukken love past things Thanks for the info. It was why I put "states" in quotation marks as I realised that this poo poo sure as hell isn't a real "state" as we would define it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
I recall a few years back hearing on some radio 4 history program how new archaeological evidence showed that actually the Saxon migration of the 5th century wasn't peaceful at all. Archaeologists had recently unearthed various battle sites etc. and discovered that the Saxons were in fact buff axe dudes who successfully murdered their way across England. This was noteworthy because at the time the prevailing theory was that it was a largely peaceful migration. Sadly that's all I remember but would be interested if anyone in the thread is more familiar with the current state of the archaeology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That seems particularly tasteless I'l say!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
That was weird what happened back there guys. You know the bit where everyone decided England was actually the good guy and Wales is just lazy or something. And then pissflaps joined in on your side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Prince John posted:It's going to be almost comical when BoJo and Fox suddenly realise that 'ending up on WTO rules' actually means embarking on a poo poo load of bilateral negotiations to frantically agree WTO Schedules, while simultaneously avoiding making any EU-UK specific concessions not apply to the rest of the world through the WTO's Most Favoured Nation requirements. I was trying to explain mfn rules to someone I know who voted for brexit and it just wouldn't sink in how utterly hosed we'd be
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/930463184850489345 rip
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
50-64 having a bigger negative net rating then the 25-49 for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:50-64 having a bigger negative net rating then the 25-49 for some reason. could just be a statistical fluke
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:That was weird what happened back there guys. You know the bit where everyone decided England was actually the good guy and Wales is just lazy or something. And then pissflaps joined in on your side. prolly because SAXONS!!  is pretty weird to 99% of people
ronya fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Obliterati posted:Depends. To be honest in this time and place calling the various Saxon/Brythonic polities 'states' is misleading. Especially in the context of the Migration Period, which this event is just the tail end of, we're dealing with bands/tribes in the range 10,000 - 100,000 including non-combatants. We also know of incidents where smaller groups met and were subsumed by larger ones whilst on the move, and of course the Germanic invasion of Britain is, traditionally, a three tribe affair (no love for Angles or Jutes in this thread, I see). We don't know a huge amount of how leaders arose and how these moving bands were organised, but we do know that they weren't living in this fashion before they started moving so you can assume things were a little bit ad hoc. They're organisationally uncomparable to Rome, where being a 'citizen' was a definite legal concept that had no relation to ethnicity. Remember that all our records of this time period are written by people who: Short version is there's barely any real concrete lore so make up your own headcanon. Also I have to say if your empire can't successfully absorb people on your own bloody tiny island after seven fecking centuries then what's your empire even for. Like at that point it should have happened accidentally. PS Celtic/Pictish pride but gently caress Wales and especially Mann, bunch of inbred degenerates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 07:24
|
|
