The British National Party

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by magister

The people of the British Isles are genetically related to each other. The so-called Anglo-Saxons are the same, genetically, as the celtic people of scotland, wales, and Ireland.

Even if that were so, the genetic kinship (the presence of this or that chromosome in some population) is not something upon which nation or nationalism can be founded. It is irrelevant to the concept of nation, at least in my opinion.

Originally Posted by magister

I am American myself, and of Irish descent. I consider America to have an Anglo-Celtic heritage and this is important to me.

Anglo-Celtic? Or Anglo-Celtic-German-Spanish-Slavic-Iroquois-Chinese-Yoruba-.....?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by magister

The people of the British Isles are genetically related to each other. The so-called Anglo-Saxons are the same, genetically, as the celtic people of scotland, wales, and Ireland.

That's not what derives from genetic studies, though.

[magister]

I know I've read articles that said there were genetic studies that concluded closeness between the English and their Celtic neighbors. I'm not well versed in the literature on this issue though, and can't claim to know what the evidence suggests.

Also I agree that genetic similarity or any biological concept is not the basis of a nation. A nation, in my view, is an organic social relationship that is a connection of families, a connection just as natural and truthfull as the family itself. I guess it gets complicated as to where you draw the line between one's regional loyalty and one's greater loyalty. I think the way this can be settled is to look at the area that is historically under the control of a sovereign state, which represents that nation. Thus, even though I am a New Englander, I think of my land as encompassing all 50 states which have historically been under the control of the US government. Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

[Menydh]

You are definining a country, not a nation. Then again, you are American. So it was expected.

[Susi]

The people of the British Isles are genetically related to each other. The so-called Anglo-Saxons are the same, genetically, as the celtic people of scotland, wales, and Ireland.

Yes, I think we English have a certain degree of relation to our Celtic neighbours. No, I don't think that makes us the same (therefore justifying the British Union). We are unique in culture and heritage. We are not genetically exactly the same as them; I have no idea what the hel you've been reading. If we were genetically the same there probably wouldn't be any sort of incidence of Germanic types in the British Isles. Explain away why there are those (like myself) who are Germanic (and not Celtic) and who are English?

Yes, the English language is Germanic, but languages have come and gone in Britain based on what the dominant force was on the continent. The linguistic difference between the different parts of Britain doesn't mean that they are totally different peoples.

Have you ever compared the Welsh, Cornish, and (Irish/Scottish) Gaelic languages to English? Not very similar, are they? I know you've said this doesn't justify any sort of difference, but why not do the same with Finnish and Swedish? Russian and Polish?

We are not totally different but we're different enough to cause conflict. And there were several "dominant forces" on the Isles at any one time, that is why the Celtic languages survive to this day as well as English (which evolved from Old English or Anglo-Saxon, a distinctly Germanic language).

The people of the British isles have a common history, and the meta-culture of the british isles have heavily influenced places like the United States and Canada.

I would say "very lightly influenced" only because I have experience in this. I was raised in a distinctly English environment (my best friend when I was a child was Scottish, same situation as I). I am more culturally English than Canadian and I can observed marked and obvious differences between the two. I've also had the pleasure of visiting America more than a few times in my life and can say that there is virtually no similarity between America and any place in the entire United Kingdom nor Ireland. Canada has more similarities because they didn't kick out the British and deny their culture (anyone want to rewrite the language with new spellings, Mr. Webster?). However, Canada is still markedly different.

I am American myself, and of Irish descent. I consider America to have an Anglo-Celtic heritage and this is important to me. I realize that this is a forum for Europeans and I don't mean to butt in, I hope you don't mind me opining about this.

America may have some English and Celtic blood but it doesn't really make it an "Anglo-Celtic" nation because they forsook and bastardised our culture (I mean tea in the sea, really, come on!).

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Susi

Yes, I think we English have a certain degree of relation to our Celtic neighbours. No, I don't think that makes us the same (therefore justifying the British Union). We are unique in culture and heritage. We are not genetically exactly the same as them; I have no idea what the hel you've been reading. If we were genetically the same there probably wouldn't be any sort of incidence of Germanic types in the British Isles. Explain away why there are those (like myself) who are Germanic (and not Celtic) and who are English?

I suppose he's talking about this.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I suppose he's talking about this.

As many geneticists and anthropologists have done, Oppenheimer is simply presenting what he believes to be the details of migrations of the British Isles as historical attestations to the large legacy of the major immigration of Iberian refugees to all parts of Western Europe in the context of the Allerød Oscillation. Most anthropologists and geneticists trace vast amounts of the modern populations of Western Europe back to those Iberian refugees, which in genetics is represented in R1b. The evidence generally points to the majority of modern Western Europeans descending from the western Iberian paleo-Europeans. This is traced commonly through the distribution of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups in the modern Western Europeans. A pattern of over 50% R1b distribution is consistent in the areas of the Atlantic coast, where these paleo-Europeans in question have not been "cleansed" or "replaced" by later Indo-Europeans.


But as Oppenheimer concludes - “Genetics have no bearing on cultural history.”, and it is foolish to assume that the comparative origins and genetics of different populations somehow affect their identity. The average Joe does not grasp his own ancient origins, that are of obscurity, but he has at least greater odds of understanding the current state of affairs between different nations or countries - or be receptive to whatever political bias others are imposing upon him.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

A pattern of over 50% R1b distribution is consistent in the areas of the Atlantic coast, where these paleo-Europeans in question have not been "cleansed" or "replaced" by later Indo-Europeans.

How do you know which haplogroups did the later Indo-Europeans carry?

[magister]

Originally Posted by Susi

America may have some English and Celtic blood but it doesn't really make it an "Anglo-Celtic" nation because they forsook and bastardised our culture (I mean tea in the sea, really, come on!).

We didn't really forsake English culture, we revolted against English rule because the English government was taking away the rights we thought we were entitled to, as Englishmen. King George was trying to restore absolute monarchy and the colonists didn't think that was constitutional. When the colonists made their arguments they referred to precedent in English law and jurisprudence, not to revolutionary writings like the Jacobins did.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by magister

We didn't really forsake English culture, we revolted against English rule because the English government was taking away the rights we thought we were entitled to, as Englishmen. King George was trying to restore absolute monarchy and the colonists didn't think that was constitutional. When the colonists made their arguments they referred to precedent in English law and jurisprudence, not to revolutionary writings like the Jacobins did.

British rule, British government, British law. England as a true state hasn't existed since 1707. Either way you Americans pissed on it so I don't think you have a right to claim it. Maybe in the past American culture was a little more "British" but nowadays, not at all.

If they wanted to remain British then they wouldn't have revolted in the manner that they did.

[magister]

Originally Posted by Susi

If they wanted to remain British then they wouldn't have revolted in the manner that they did.

But if we didn't revolt we would have remained colonials. Isn't the keeping of colonies imperialism? And isn't imperialism anathema to nationalism and patriotism? A nation that has an empire can't reman a nation for long, because the subject people will eventually want to play a role in the mother country. Many nations that have created an empire has ended up being dilluted by their former colonials.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Monolith

How do you know which haplogroups did the later Indo-Europeans carry?

All you have to do is look at the regions where paleo-European groups are known to survive to some extent (e.g. Basques, that are supported linguistically), and look at the hapologroup distribution, which in that case is over 3/4ths R1b, and the further significant migratory destinations can be traced through 50%+ R1b areas. This can also be compared to what is known of Indo-European migrations and the distribution of IE languages, which does not have satisfying explanatory merits or predictive effectivity in understanding the haplogroup distributions of Europe fully. Whats more, the pattern of its distribution along the Atlantic coast is consistent with paleo-Europeans being the most prevalent in the Western extremities of Europe. The estimated time of the origin of this mutation (~30,000 years BCE) is also consistent with the current view of the migrations and the present distributions of it. With the climatic changes I mentioned in the equation, you have a very good understanding of how this haplogroup spread, and things such as DNA testing of ancient bones and skeletons is also a very interesting pursuit in that context.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by magister

But if we didn't revolt we would have remained colonials. Isn't the keeping of colonies imperialism? And isn't imperialism anathema to nationalism and patriotism? A nation that has an empire can't reman a nation for long, because the subject people will eventually want to play a role in the mother country. Many nations that have created an empire has ended up being dilluted by their former colonials.

Either way you must (or have) admit(ted) that America is not in any way, shape, or form truly related to anything from the British Isles apart from that they speak a strange form of English.

Like I've said countless times, Britain is a state, not a nation. There is a large difference between the two terms. Look it up.

[magister]

Originally Posted by Susi

Either way you must (or have) admit(ted) that America is not in any way, shape, or form truly related to anything from the British Isles apart from that they speak a strange form of English.

Like I've said countless times, Britain is a state, not a nation. There is a large difference between the two terms. Look it up.

I really disagree with you. I see America as an offshoot of Anglo-Saxon civilization. America has always had a large ethnicly english population that sought to preserve its identity and "purity". That segement of the population has long dominated the cultural and political power structures. The ties with Britain, in terms of politics, have been strong. Its true that there are many non-British ethnicities in America, but they have often had to assimilate as much as they could to the WASP culture in order to be accepted. Personally, I have no English blood and do not consider myself part of WASP culture as I am a Catholic.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by magister

I really disagree with you. I see America as an offshoot of Anglo-Saxon civilization. America has always had a large ethnicly english population that sought to preserve its identity and "purity". That segement of the population has long dominated the cultural and political power structures. The ties with Britain, in terms of politics, have been strong. Its true that there are many non-British ethnicities in America, but they have often had to assimilate as much as they could to the WASP culture in order to be accepted. Personally, I have no English blood and do not consider myself part of WASP culture as I am a Catholic.

Actually, Sir John H. Ellliott draws here a parallel between Imperial Spain and the British Empire, where such claims arise as a defense against the accusations by both Spaniards and English that the Creoles/Colonials had degenerated and mixed their blood in the New World. In different ways, the claims of ancestry and race become vital to the peoples of The Americas. However unreal.