[Menydh]

I have to say that the genetic and anthropologic [arguably pseudo-] arguments have been carried on in Stirpes since the earlier days, from other forums and sites and by individuals who belonged more to those other sites than to Stirpes. Nowadays more occasional than frequent, as most of those individuals have crawled back to the hole where they came from.

And here I must, in all honesty, admit my mistake of having allowed this problem to perpetuate itself, and even of having helped to perpetuate it. Perhaps willingly.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Perhaps I should end this post with this quote from Oppenheimer, that I think has been valid on numerous occasions - “Genetics have no bearing on cultural history.”

While I will agree with much of what you've said above, and especially with your implied suggestion of focusing first and foremost on ethnicity to determine identity, I must also say that the source that you have chosen to support your argument (Oppenheimer) is far from being the best possible. If you noticed, it reads:

He [Dr. Oppenheimer] also adopts Dr. Forster’s argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.

English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because English, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Julius Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.

I hope that you are able to see how bizarre and, in the light of British historic insistance of wiping out the other identities in the islands (which in this occasion would be supported by assuming a pre-existing assimilation), how perverted it is to pretend that the English language (or an early form of it which, for the purposes of what's said there it would have to be non Anglo-Saxon) was already spoken prior to the Roman conquest.