The Second American Revolution
-
The Anglo Scots war was between British Tribes fighing on British Soil, so kinda is a civil war. The Norman king was king of Britain, the Saxons were the British at that point and had been for many hundreds of years, and the Danes similarly held swathes of Britain. Study more history before correcting those that have!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I said 'English', a term originally used to describe the various tribes of saxons, jutes, angles and danes (who came under christian southern rule) during alfreds time. British is actually a term that originally applied to the celtic (pre saxon) inhabitants of the southern part of the British iles and more correctly known as Brythonic Celts, as opposed to Goedelic Celts who inhabited Scotland and Ireland. The Brythonic Celts used a language of the same name, and following the invasion of the Saxons and their subsequent migration to Britany took their language there. Today Breton (Breizh), Cornish and Welsh are are still very close languages. If you know any Welsh you will know the 'Bara brieth' is the term for 'Welsh bread'. Clearly, the term Brythonic, British, Breith, Breton, Prythian too was also used, are all the same word at root. The term 'Welsh' actualy stems from the Saxon word for foreigner. As does 'Cornwall', which means 'west foreigner' in old Saxon. The use of the term British later in history came about after the union of Wales scotland and England, reviving the older word, and making it palatable to at least the Welsh, the original British people. As for William, he became an English king, but was of Danish descent, from King Rollo of Demark, who was given the land at the mouth of the Seine by the French king in the 10th century. Let me ask you a quesiton, do you speak English or British? I think that provides you with a nice deffinition of the difference between the two terms. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! ;P
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
If I may interject, your reply contains a few questionable statements. You seem to be mixing up racial terminology with political groupings. The political groupings are what is important when dealing with a civil war. Indeed racial tensions inside a single country have sparked civil wars. 1 - The term English might have originally meant the groups you mentioned, but the "British" (i.e. the Welsh) were never completely removed from what is now England. The ones that remained would have been considered English too, by the time this phrase came into being. 2 - Irrespective of what the term English originally meant it was, until quite recently (and incorrectly), used interchangeably with British. 3 - Whilst the name British does indeed cover the groups you mentioned, (and possibly the Basques too, though the evidence for this is unclear) this is a racial description. The common (and legal) usage in English describes all inhabitants of the UK and the Channel Islands (Broadly) as British. It is only in the last few decades that people have started to define themselves as English / Scottish / Welsh again, notably with the rise in nationalism (in the non-pejorative sense). I'm ignoring Ireland + Ulster because it is far too complicated. Until the 1950s most of these people would have said they are "British", some people (especially ex-army, like DD, and older people) still use it in preference. 4 - The term British did indeed come later in history, but this is the modern usage in English, the racial meaning is rarely used. As you say, it only came into common currency after the act of union, but the idea comes from the Late Middle ages. King Arthur was king of the Britons (and Briton is used in its racial sense here) but the idea of a "King of the British Isles" (as Arthur was also supposed to have been) became powerful in the Mediaeval Mind. The term was never meant to be palatable to the Welsh, appeasing the Scots would have been more important as the Welsh were already well (and long) integrated by that time. Most of the Long-Bowyers at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt were Welsh. 5 - Yes, William became king, but not an English King. He became King of England, but continued to consider himself Norman. Indeed it wasn't until Edward III that the kings started to consider themselves as English, despite having such poor (and decidedly Norman) French that they could barely communicate with their French royal counterparts. 6 - Everyone in the British Isles speaks English, so do the Americans (argua
-
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171[^] The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another. People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?" Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency. Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do. Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily. Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully. He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design. He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever. The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House." His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history. Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain." A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic. Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of
-
I said 'English', a term originally used to describe the various tribes of saxons, jutes, angles and danes (who came under christian southern rule) during alfreds time. British is actually a term that originally applied to the celtic (pre saxon) inhabitants of the southern part of the British iles and more correctly known as Brythonic Celts, as opposed to Goedelic Celts who inhabited Scotland and Ireland. The Brythonic Celts used a language of the same name, and following the invasion of the Saxons and their subsequent migration to Britany took their language there. Today Breton (Breizh), Cornish and Welsh are are still very close languages. If you know any Welsh you will know the 'Bara brieth' is the term for 'Welsh bread'. Clearly, the term Brythonic, British, Breith, Breton, Prythian too was also used, are all the same word at root. The term 'Welsh' actualy stems from the Saxon word for foreigner. As does 'Cornwall', which means 'west foreigner' in old Saxon. The use of the term British later in history came about after the union of Wales scotland and England, reviving the older word, and making it palatable to at least the Welsh, the original British people. As for William, he became an English king, but was of Danish descent, from King Rollo of Demark, who was given the land at the mouth of the Seine by the French king in the 10th century. Let me ask you a quesiton, do you speak English or British? I think that provides you with a nice deffinition of the difference between the two terms. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! ;P
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Consider it smoked. It does not negate the fact that there have been many civil wars, however yours is a very comprehensive answer, and I applaud you for it. Credit where it is due, Sir!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Now, I recanted all of this form memory. I hope you have had a chance to google it and see that indeed, when it comes to being right, you are only a beginner in the company of a master! ;P ;)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I humourously flip you the bird!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
If I may interject, your reply contains a few questionable statements. You seem to be mixing up racial terminology with political groupings. The political groupings are what is important when dealing with a civil war. Indeed racial tensions inside a single country have sparked civil wars. 1 - The term English might have originally meant the groups you mentioned, but the "British" (i.e. the Welsh) were never completely removed from what is now England. The ones that remained would have been considered English too, by the time this phrase came into being. 2 - Irrespective of what the term English originally meant it was, until quite recently (and incorrectly), used interchangeably with British. 3 - Whilst the name British does indeed cover the groups you mentioned, (and possibly the Basques too, though the evidence for this is unclear) this is a racial description. The common (and legal) usage in English describes all inhabitants of the UK and the Channel Islands (Broadly) as British. It is only in the last few decades that people have started to define themselves as English / Scottish / Welsh again, notably with the rise in nationalism (in the non-pejorative sense). I'm ignoring Ireland + Ulster because it is far too complicated. Until the 1950s most of these people would have said they are "British", some people (especially ex-army, like DD, and older people) still use it in preference. 4 - The term British did indeed come later in history, but this is the modern usage in English, the racial meaning is rarely used. As you say, it only came into common currency after the act of union, but the idea comes from the Late Middle ages. King Arthur was king of the Britons (and Briton is used in its racial sense here) but the idea of a "King of the British Isles" (as Arthur was also supposed to have been) became powerful in the Mediaeval Mind. The term was never meant to be palatable to the Welsh, appeasing the Scots would have been more important as the Welsh were already well (and long) integrated by that time. Most of the Long-Bowyers at the battles of Crecy and Agincourt were Welsh. 5 - Yes, William became king, but not an English King. He became King of England, but continued to consider himself Norman. Indeed it wasn't until Edward III that the kings started to consider themselves as English, despite having such poor (and decidedly Norman) French that they could barely communicate with their French royal counterparts. 6 - Everyone in the British Isles speaks English, so do the Americans (argua
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English! Desribing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future. No doubt, if I had the ability to read the future and that future saw the UK become a Muslim state governed by the Taliban, I could call the Afghan war a UK civil war. Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way. The Socts-English war was a war between two nations. As was the Saxon war against the Britons. Heres a quick test for you, name two differences between Norman French and Parisien French (without googling!) :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English! Desribing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future. No doubt, if I had the ability to read the future and that future saw the UK become a Muslim state governed by the Taliban, I could call the Afghan war a UK civil war. Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way. The Socts-English war was a war between two nations. As was the Saxon war against the Britons. Heres a quick test for you, name two differences between Norman French and Parisien French (without googling!) :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English! Desribing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future. No doubt, if I had the ability to read the future and that future saw the UK become a Muslim state governed by the Taliban, I could call the Afghan war a UK civil war. Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way. The Socts-English war was a war between two nations. As was the Saxon war against the Britons. Heres a quick test for you, name two differences between Norman French and Parisien French (without googling!) :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Nor would I, well actually I would, but just to wind them up, that is another matter :-). Actually, I have Welsh ancestry, my paternal great-grandfather was a native speaker. The long-bowyers I mentioned were integrated but not assimilated, they would have described themselves as Welsh too. I can describe myself as Northumbrian (and there are Northumbrian nationalists, just as there are Cornish/Welsh/Scots nationalists), but that doesn't stop me from being British, or English for that matter.
fat_boy wrote:
Describing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future.
It depends which battle you are talking about. Yes there were constant border wars and raiding, but these are not full-on wars. I was born and grew up near the Scots borders. The area has the highest [or at least one of] density of castles in the whole of Europe, this testifies to the trouble. The Northumberland countryside is still underpopulated compared to the rest of England as a result of the warfare. There are three distinct phases of Anglo-Scots fighting:
- Pre Union of the crown. In no way are these civil wars, as you quite rightly describe.
- Post Union of the crown. The Jacobite rebellions started in this period, I doubt anyone would describe these as Civil Wars but the terminology is getting shaky.
- Post Union of the parliaments. Again,Jacobite rebellions continue. It is not stupid to argue these are civil wars at all, as the Scots were trying to gain control of a unified UK/British government/nation. Bonnie Prince Charlie actually got as far south as Derby, at a time when London is undefended. It is likely if he had pressed on, he'd have taken the [unified] Crown
Of course all this has to be read (and is read) through people's identities. It is instructive that the 1745 uprising is described as a rebellion, perhaps if they'd won, it would be described as a civil war today.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way.
Clearly. But some of the wars happened after the 1707 Act of Union. These are arguably British Civil wars, I wouldn't describe them as such due to the odd way the unification happened. If the legal status of the bits of the UK wasn't
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Yes, the idea of Welsh nationhood is recent, but this probably attests to the previous arogance of the English law and system rather than the sentiments of the people. We, the English and Welsh do feel seperate countires. But you have a point. I think between the English and the Scots there is greater distinction. Actually, Cornwall is heading towards seperate country staus if the locals would have their way!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Nor would I, well actually I would, but just to wind them up, that is another matter :-). Actually, I have Welsh ancestry, my paternal great-grandfather was a native speaker. The long-bowyers I mentioned were integrated but not assimilated, they would have described themselves as Welsh too. I can describe myself as Northumbrian (and there are Northumbrian nationalists, just as there are Cornish/Welsh/Scots nationalists), but that doesn't stop me from being British, or English for that matter.
fat_boy wrote:
Describing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future.
It depends which battle you are talking about. Yes there were constant border wars and raiding, but these are not full-on wars. I was born and grew up near the Scots borders. The area has the highest [or at least one of] density of castles in the whole of Europe, this testifies to the trouble. The Northumberland countryside is still underpopulated compared to the rest of England as a result of the warfare. There are three distinct phases of Anglo-Scots fighting:
- Pre Union of the crown. In no way are these civil wars, as you quite rightly describe.
- Post Union of the crown. The Jacobite rebellions started in this period, I doubt anyone would describe these as Civil Wars but the terminology is getting shaky.
- Post Union of the parliaments. Again,Jacobite rebellions continue. It is not stupid to argue these are civil wars at all, as the Scots were trying to gain control of a unified UK/British government/nation. Bonnie Prince Charlie actually got as far south as Derby, at a time when London is undefended. It is likely if he had pressed on, he'd have taken the [unified] Crown
Of course all this has to be read (and is read) through people's identities. It is instructive that the 1745 uprising is described as a rebellion, perhaps if they'd won, it would be described as a civil war today.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way.
Clearly. But some of the wars happened after the 1707 Act of Union. These are arguably British Civil wars, I wouldn't describe them as such due to the odd way the unification happened. If the legal status of the bits of the UK wasn't
I only used 300 years as an arbitrary time period, I should have just written 'centuries' because yes, the fighting took place over a long period of time, As for French I got a U at O'Level so all my knowledge comes from studying it way after my schooling. It is interesting though, and I believe Norman French is quite close to Channel Islands French which is still used. THe differrence between Norman French and French explain the differences between English and French, the hard Qw in English Quit (Quiter in French with a soft Qu) and so on and the position of the 'i', '-ire' vs '-rie' in words like salaire and salarie -> salary. I didnt know it was still used in the House of Lords though, that is odd!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yes, the idea of Welsh nationhood is recent, but this probably attests to the previous arogance of the English law and system rather than the sentiments of the people. We, the English and Welsh do feel seperate countires. But you have a point. I think between the English and the Scots there is greater distinction. Actually, Cornwall is heading towards seperate country staus if the locals would have their way!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There was a study that showed a correlation between the decline in the use of the Welsh language and the strength of the Welsh economy. Things have been pretty tough in Wales for the past 30-40 years, so it is no surprise that there has been a strengthening in nationalism during this period. I would imagine the same holds for Cornwall.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Actually, the idea of a Welsh nation pre-dates the anglo-saxon conquest, and it continued on right until the 13th Century. The battle of HeavenField for example, was fought between the Welsh King(s? - seem to remeber there were two for some reason?) and the King Oswald in Northumbria (as an interesting aside Oswald was decapitated, but the Northumbrians won, it is unusual for the king to die but for his side to prevail). In the early middle ages, Wales had the status of a Principality, but was still a nation (cf Modern Luxembourg: It is technically a Dutchy, a Country rules by a Grand Duke). Incidentally, Dutchy is a truer description of English Kingship, as the King/Queen of England is "Prima Inter Pares"??? (First amoung equals) to the rest of the aristocracy (hence the use of peer, "equal"). The English crown doesn't have a patrimony (These where actually lost when Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine fell to the French), the lands the Queen currently holds actually fall under different titles. Compare this with the French Kings, who had absolute power (by "devine right") and their patrinomic land is the Ile-de-France. The loss of the patrinomic lands benefited the English greatly, as it then required the King to raise taxes through parliament. Legally Wales and England have been the same political entity for a long time, though this has only been the case since at least the 13th century. One purpose of investing the Heir of the British throne the title Prince of Wales was historically to allowed the prince to run a country-sized entity in preparation to their accession. Additionally, it kept the prince occupied, so they didn't spend so much time trying to overthrow their father. Look what happens when this failed, as in the case of Henry II. Ouch.
ragnaroknrol The Internet is For Porn[^]
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.