The British (1603- ) were Europeans who lived on the islands of Britain and Ireland off the north-west coast of mainland Europe.
The British lived in the United Kingdom, made up of four kingdoms. Since each kingdom had its own language, “British” is more a political term than a cultural one.
The four kingdoms were:
- English
- Welsh
- Scottish
- Irish
Most of the Irish left about 1922, though northern Ireland stayed. English was the language used for Kingdom affairs.
Among Germanic-speaking peoples:
- Those who did not join: the Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, Faroese and Swedes.
- Those once under the British crown: the Dutch, Frisians, Afrikaners, overseas English-speaking peoples (Americans, Australians, Jamaicans, etc) and some Germans.
After hundreds of years of fighting, the four kingdoms were united in 1603 when the English crown fell to the Scottish king, James VI, King of Scots, who made all decisions about war and peace for the United Kingdom. Over time a senate of the 1,436 top men from the four kingdoms grew to have most of the power. There was no constitution.
Women: were not the head of the family or clan. They could not choose (or remove) men who held positions of power, certainly not those in the Kingdom senate.
Marriage: A married man lived alone with his wife apart from her people. His wife could divorce him only if she could prove he committed adultery as well as incest, bigamy, cruelty or desertion.
Property: Held in private. Many were poor. They were a model in capitalist circles. Women could not own property.
War: A standing army and navy. Many prisoners of war died, very few became British.
Food: Raised cows, pigs and sheep, grew wheat, barley and potatoes. Drank tea. Many had never tasted meat.
Religion: These days many have no religion though most follow the teachings of the prophet Jesus Christ of 2,000 years ago. In the old British religion priests fought the evil in men with words, water and bread, while prayer frightened away evil spirits and the high god Jehovah created and ruled all things.
Dreams: Not taken seriously, which is why they had few prophets. They knew little about the subconscious.
Decline and fall: The United Kingdom, which reached its height from 1815 to 1939, robbing a fourth of the world with guns and ships, was weakened by a shocking lack of industry in its empire and, worst of all, spending much of its wealth fighting Germany.
Some stuff White Americans got from the British:
- their base culture (see above) complete with
- bad cooking,
- a North American piece of the British Empire,
- an example of bad government not to follow,
- tennis.
A video of the British people as they were in 2011:
How I wrote this post: I copied the post on the Iroquois and changed it up for the British, keeping:
- the ahistorical past tense freezing a people at their military height (the 1800s in the case of the British),
- an out-of-date map,
- the interest in housing and clothing in pictures,
- using “real” photographs,
- throwing in chance bits of history and ethnography
– Abagond, 2012.
See also:
- Iroquois
- Native Europeans
- Are the British human?
- Britain
- Notes on how not to write about Native Americans
- Anglo-Protestant culture – that base culture that White Americans got from the British
Nice.
AmeriKlan is still very much a British nation complete with the oppressiveness. Nothing has really changed except the accents.
LikeLike
Interesting post about the United Kingdom. Like the youtube “What Song Are You Listening To.
LikeLike
“Those once under the British crown: the Dutch, Frisians.”
I guess that is not entirely correct. A shared head of state does not make one entity subordinate to another.
LikeLike
tennis is a nice punchline!
The simplicity of language for religion blends well to explain the poverty and domination.
LikeLike
[…] The British (1603- ) were Europeans who lived on the islands of Britain and Ireland off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. The British lived in the United Kingdom, made up of four kingdoms. Since each kingdom had its own language, “British” is more a political term than a cultural one. The four kingdoms were: EnglishWelshScottishIrish […]
LikeLike
“The United Kingdom, which reached its height from 1815 to 1939, robbing a fourth of the world with guns and ships, was weakened by the lack of industry in its empire and, worst of all, spending much of its wealth fighting Germany.”
Well put. Thanks for being frank about the cause of UK’s rise to power– robbery. As the old adage goes, you live by the sword you die by the sword.
LikeLike
Hmmm. And there’s any wonder why the U.K. and U.S. are practically clones of each other today?
I read in college the the second war was the main reason Britain pulled its tentacles away from India and not so much the activism from the Indian nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi.
LikeLike
Abagond, Just a question. What is your evidence that they don’t take dreams seriously? I personally think you are wrong there. All humans have dreams, and some people take them serious in all cultures.
LikeLike
You should have called this “The British in a very small nutshell”
LikeLike
I agree with Bulanik…the Irish have never been British. Not sure if it’s a mistake americans make in general when taking about Europe or any other part of the world except North America, or is it part of the satirical nature of this ‘mockumentary’, a kind of an anthropological National Geography article written by Alan Partridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Partridge) …not getting the facts right on purpose, mimicking uneducated and unaware people who write about places and cultures they don’t know very well. If it is an honest mistake, then it’s a HUGE mistake. If it’s intended as a satire, it could’ve been a lot juicier by choosing even more obscure facts about them. I do appreciate the idea of writing such an article though, and it made me read the post which it was, the Iroquis and The Five Nations, which I had read about before, but I always like to learn more and refresh the things I’ve forgotten.
The British Empire was based on plunder and pillage, no doubt. I have absolutely no love for empires of any sort, since they are based on conquest, genocide and exploitation, stripping its subject countries off of means to sustain themselves. People often (British themselves, of course) want to write off the sins of the empire by claiming that they brought civilization to the far corners of the world. Not realizing that they were already civilized, the Brits just valued their own culture above all else.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
@ Hannu
The map is from 1800. If you notice there is no Belgium or Germany or Republic of Ireland. I used an out-of-date map because that is what I did for the Iroquois post.
Most of what is in the post was taken from the 1800s – maps, pictures, the state of women’s rights, etc. Just like the Iroquois post freezes them in time in the 1700s.
My understanding of the term “British” is that it is a nationality not an ethnicity. It is not a matter of what culture you belong to or even what you call yourself, but what nation you belong to. Winston Churchill, for example, was English by ethnicity but British by nationality.
So people who live in the Republic of Ireland today are not British at all – but they were till 1922, an extremely disagreeable fact to many of them. And they were in the time warp world that this post is set in – like in the map.
While I did not put anything in the post I knew to be flat-out wrong, neither did I fact check it anymore than I did the Iroquois post. The difference, of course, is that this post will get tons more British readers – and Dutch or Irish or Jamaican readers – than the other post will ever get in Iroquois readers. I am sure there is stuff in the Iroquois post that is wrong too, but there is almost no one to catch the mistakes. That in itself is pretty troubling. Commenters help to keep me on my toes, but not where there is shared ignorance!!!
LikeLike
@ Hannu
This is partly meant as satire. It is meant to make a point, not be a serious guide to the British. But I am glad people are finding mistakes in it, because that tells me what sort of mistakes there might be in the Iroquois post and, more generally, in what I think I know of Native Americans.
LikeLike
@ teddy
I know what you are saying. They had the same king for a while. That is why I put “under the British crown”, not “under British rule”. Though I could just as well have said that England was under the Dutch crown. There is probably a better way of saying it, but I am going to let it stand as is because mistakes like this are part of the point of the post.
LikeLike
@Abagond
That’s what confused me a bit. I did read it part serious attempt, part satire, but the problem with the approach is that since it’s not properly neither it adds up as nothing, really. It relies too heavily on the reading skills of an average american not educated on the history of countries and cultures outside North America. Some might take this as a solid, reliable piece, if and when they don’t have the ground knowledge nor bother to do their own research on the subject.
I actually myself did read the Iroquais post as a reliable information, being fascinated by the original americans since childhood. I understand you don’t have the time to verify and cross-check your sources and references this blog being just a hobby after all, but maybe you could start citing your sources so people can make their own judgement on their reliability.
LikeLike
@ dave
Having dreams and thinking they have meaning is universal to all known human societies. Even British society. But compared to the Iroquois, who are the standard of comparison here, British culture does not take dreams all that seriously. No one in Britain, for example, is founding a serious religion based on dreams they had.
British culture does not even take dreams as seriously as people do in the Bible. Like in the Gospel of Matthew Joseph married Mary based on a dream even though he had sound reasons to suspect her of being unfaithful.
LikeLike
@ Hannu
Just to be clear, the Iroquois post was meant seriously. I like that post. I think everyone understands I am a blogger, not a scholar. My writing in a blog without footnotes and sources shows that.
On the other hand, seeing the level of misrepresentation and ignorance about blacks in White American culture and even in the comments on this blog, I suspect that the Iroquois post is profoundly compromised: almost everything I know about the Iroquois comes from white people. I wrote this post to get a handle on that by recasting it about an analogous subject that is way more familiar so I could see where the warps are.
LikeLike
@Abagond
I did take the Iroquis post seriously, and I like it a lot. I have no qualms or complaints, I’m not a scholar myself, I’m just interested in a wide variety of subjects as I can see many people here are. Fascinating read of fascinating people. Props for writing about them. I also like the illustrations of the longhouses a lot.
Sadly indeed most of the world’s history is biased because it’s written by the victors: white western european and american. I hope and believe that is slowly changing. Right now I’m reading the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann ( http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059 ) about pre-columbian Americas http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/08/18/1491-by-charles-c-mann/ .
I’m only just at the beginning, but it is extremely fascinating so far, coming to the conclusion that that part of the world was more populous, developed and advanced in every way possible than thought before even by the most ‘esteemed’ scholars. The most ignored part of world history so far.
LikeLike
@ Hannu
“1491” is a great book – at least the parts of it I have read.
LikeLike
*facepalm*
Good grief. Staggeringly wrong, on so many levels. And this is not parody?
A few points:
It’s called Parliament, not the senate.
Women could, and did, own property (up to and including half the bloody country, and everyone in it, as monarch and head of state).
The union between England and Scotland was in 1707, not 1603, before that the two countries were still discreet sovereign states (and the Act of Union forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland wasn’t until 1801, but things are of course a lot more complicated than that and go back much, much further).
The peak of the power of the British Empire would’ve been closer to 1900 than 1800; the French were, arguably, in ascendancy until Trafalgar (1805) and Waterloo (1815) put an end to Napolean’s ambitions.
And we do have a constitution, just so you know.
I could go on (and on, and on) but I’d be here all week if I went through correcting every mistake – and don’t even get me started on things the British gave to THE WORLD, let alone stuff White Americans got.
Prophets? How about Newton. And Darwin. And James Clerk Maxwell. And a thousand and one other dead white guys who’ve improved your life in innumerable ways.
Just… go to Wikipedia. Using this thing you’re on now, which we call the World Wide Web. Which was invented by a Brit. A white British man, in fact. The evil patriarchal bastard. Remember that the next time you post about “oppression” on this blog, and who made that possible.
You’re right about one thing though, the British Empire went bankrupt fighting the Third Reich (never mind the lives sacrificed). Maybe we should’ve stayed out of it after all, if this is the thanks we get. I guess being the last bastion of resistance against Hitler’s tyranny in Europe makes *us* the bad guys.
Cheers for that.
The British (or Britons, if you prefer) have been around a lot longer than since 1603 as well. Hint: the name is derived from what the Romans used to call us (you’ve heard of the Romans, right?) and that’s by no means the beginning of our history either.
Finally, you can thank the British for stamping out the slave trade, using that standing army and navy you mentioned. Not the first (or last) nation to institute slavery, but the first to put a stop to it. You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Funny thing is, I read the Iroquois post first, to try and get a handle on where this blog was coming from, and I thought that piece was a parody of ignorant, patronising old imperialist anthropology. Turns out it wasn’t. Oh, dear.
Like the author stated, no facts were checked in the making of these posts.
One may as well read these articles, and everything else here, as parody – certainly not to be taken seriously – since the author seems proud to proclaim that he’s just making it all up as he goes along.
And, Bulanik, you’re free to dispute any of the facts I presented in my comment above, especially those concerning the Royal Navy’s role in ending the slave trade. If it ain’t so, say so.
LikeLike
More than likely. Sorry about that.
I’m still reeling and bemused at the level of malice shown towards Brits on this blog, I didn’t realise we were despised that much. Quite shocking really, I thought the Americans were on Great Satan duty these days…
Let’s forget it. Cup of tea? 🙂
LikeLike
Ooooo, a British ‘person’ got insulted that the rest of the world isn’t grateful for being exploited and being under their yolk for centuries. Obviously this post did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is to reveal the hypocrisy and the white privilege of people like British Person. Scarlet Pimpernel is what you are.
You seem to have totally misunderstood what prophets and dreaming mean in this context (or any other context, I believe). I believe Abagond meant dreaming in the most spiritual sense, not the way artists and scientists might dream when creating or solving a problem.
Personally I think that the British wanted to put stop to slavery just to prevent the Americans getting free labour. I mean if you think how the British ruled their dominions, I find it hard to believe they would’ve acted only out of humanitarian reasons or sheer good-heartedness. Bollocks, as you britons say.
And the chinese must be oh so grateful that you brought China on its knees in the Opium wars and destroyed countless lives by forcing opium to the masses and reaping the ill-gained profits.
What is wrong with you british people is that you suffer from an imperial hangover and are so sorry to have lost your vice grip on the world and its resources. Oh poor us, we are not appreciated for bringing the light to the world -while trampling on it with an iron boot.
British empire did indeed go bankrupt fighting in the WW2 and wasn’t able to recuperate, because suddenly the colonies wanted independence and didn’t want to be robbed of their wealth anymore just to fill the vaults of those darling Britons. Brits suffered but not even the fraction of what Poles, Lithuanians, Ukranians and Belorussians did, just to name a few. Last bastion against Die Dritte Reich? For a short while yes, until Hitler made the mistake and wanted to wrestle with the Russian Bear, fighting on two fronts which toook the pressure of your little archipelago. If you know anything about WW2 you would know that victory depended on Russians (and Americans) more than anyone else.
The positive things that your beloved empire were just byproducts of an ever hungry and bloodthirsty behemoth with an insatiable appetite and with no remorse nor pity for the plight of its unwilling subjects.
THe British Person is making this post the parody it was MEANT TO BE from the beginning. Thank you for filling the gaps and reinforcing the parodic tone! You should really write comedy for the BBC.
And by the way, the britons of antiquity hardly mean the same as todays British. You were after all conquered multiple times in the history by germanic peoples such as the juts, saxons, vikings, normans (decendants of vikings themselves). You are mutts and mongrels.
LikeLike
Bulanik: Smashing! I’ll put kettle on, you find us some crumpets. 🙂
—
Hannu L: Look, the original article didn’t insult anything except my intelligence. The only thing about it which offends me is its breathtaking ignorance. You can say anything you like about me and my fellow Brits and we generally won’t mind (you’ll never be as derogatory to us as we are to ourselves, believe me) but, if you’re going to insult us, at least try to make the slurs somewhat accurate or, better yet, funny.
Perhaps its me, perhaps I’m just not in on it, perhaps you have to be part of some Anglo-loathing clique to get the joke, because I didn’t see it (no doubt due to my own blinding British pomposity). Fair enough.
Regarding stopping the slave trade, I don’t much care what the motives were, we did it, and that’s not in dispute, is it? I do, however, find it immensely entertaining that your hatred of the British demands that you impute malevolent designs behind what must be an unequivocal good. We’re just so irredeemably evil that any positive outcomes of our actions must be unintended consequences or simply accidental. We’re innately incapable of doing anything deliberatey benevolent.
Hilarious. I’d lay off the Mel Gibson movies if I was you, mate.
Won’t argue with you about the war. Of course the outcome was decided on the Eastern Front.
Won’t argue with you about the nature of the British Empire either. Like all Empires it was rather grasping and rapacious. No different from any other in that respect, and just like every other people too, except, for a time, we were better at it than anyone else. That’s history. Guilty as charged.
And it doesn’t bother me in the least. That is, after all, how one earns “white privilege”. 😉
You’re wrong about the ancestry of the peoples of the British Isles, btw. There’s been some mixture of related European populations, sure, but the stock hasn’t actually changed drastically in millenia. Look up Cheddar Man.
He was probably a cannibal too. Must be where we get our infamous bloodthirstiness from. 🙂
LikeLike
@ British Person
Thank you very much for your comments.
This post was modeled directly on the Iroquois post to see where it would go.
I never said I made stuff up. I said that I did not fact check this post any more than the other one. A relative thing. I was not going to get into 1707 and 1801 and all that, for example, because I did not do that with “Iroquois”, which is also a political identity with a history that is probably just as messy.
“Dreams” means the ones you have while sleeping.
My own picture of the British is not what is presented above. I have been taught NOT to see them that way – even though the Iroquois post is very close to how I was taught to see them.
If I wanted to INSULT the British I could have found way worse pictures than the above. And I could have put in far more damning facts. Victorian times were not pretty for most people, shockingly so when you consider the wealth and power the British nation enjoyed at that time. OR I could have shifted it to the 1700s when they still ran a slave empire and play that up. I did neither because that was not my aim.
LikeLike
“My own picture of the British is not what is presented above. I have been taught NOT to see them that way – even though the Iroquois post is very close to how I was taught to see them.”
Ah! Now I think I begin to see some of your perspective and meaning. Interesting, cheers.
I’ll have a ponder but probably won’t post again. Don’t want to derail your blog with fights I may start through misunderstanding.
Thanks.
LikeLike
“Abagond,
While I did not put anything in the post I knew to be flat-out wrong, neither did I fact check it anymore than I did the Iroquois post. The difference, of course, is that this post will get tons more British readers – and Dutch or Irish or Jamaican readers – than the other post will ever get in Iroquois readers. I am sure there is stuff in the Iroquois post that is wrong too, but there is almost no one to catch the mistakes. That in itself is pretty troubling.”
Linda says,
Abagond, good try at trying to be provocative to get responses.
If you really want to bring in the British, Dutch, or Irish commenters, then you should talk about football and say that “Wayne Rooney or Van Persie is the best footballer that ever lived”…or that British lager is better than Guinness, if that doens’t move people, then nothing will 🙂
LikeLike
@Linda
“If you really want to bring in the British, Dutch, or Irish commenters, then you should talk about football”
Aren’t most Europeans die-hard soccer fans? I’d wager add a soccer sucks in a sentence and watch them come running, not just to correct the term “soccer”.
I’d take a gamble and say most are more hardcore fans of soccer than us Canadians are of hockey.
LikeLike
“Yawn, don’t you know by now that American-football is just rugby by the wrong name?”
Yup, I’ve know for ages. But when you’re next to the most (current) powerful country you can’t do much but silently agree with whatever blowhard patriotism they want to show (calling rugby soccer for instance).
LikeLike
It was embarrassing to see those Pacific Islanders “lifting” William and Kate on their backs are carrying them. I felt it was 1812 all over again. Under the British, their ancestors were nearly wiped out, had their land and resources taken over.
LikeLike
Abagond, look at the map, the Dutch had a republic back then, and considering that the British took over the entire Dutch Colonial Empire, and the Netherlands is like Scotland, Wales and Ireland playing as a county in English count(r)y cricket, it is a rather understandable mistake.
LikeLike
@British Person
Fair enough. I never said that ALL british people were purely EVIL, on the contrary, more like they were not any BETTER than anybody else, but since they were immensely powerful and influential, they did cause much harm to the world, because that’s the nature of an EMPIRE. Empires exist only for themselves and need constant growth and vicious guarding of their amassed wealth and resources. No lives spared.
It admittedly slightly pissed me off that you seemed to me to give an absolution to the atrocities done in the name of the empire. Power corrupts.
I do not like any empire in the history, meaning that the progress and inventions they’ve been credited to has not been worth the suffering and loss of lives they have caused when doing so.
I do not consider myself an anglophobe in the least, I for the most part do not value one culture or people above another, not even my own, which is Finland. There’s good and bad in every society. All cultures have contributed something to this world, but not all have been rightly credited, and some have been credited too much.
The brits I’ve personally met I have mostly liked and have indeed befriended a few.
I have a quick temper, true, but I don’t have the need to uphold any kind of animosity towards you or any other person on this blog once I’ve had my say. So I’ve got no particular ill will against you other than saying out (very) loud what I thought of your comment. And uhh, I don’t really like Mel Gibson that much, except his Mayan adventure film ‘Apocalypto’ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eE1hxj1yzU) was rather brilliant. ‘Braveheart’ is entertaining, but his “freedooooooom” crap gets on my tits. 😀
LikeLike
Everyone Irish or Scottish person I’ve ever met would cuss you out (in Gaelic) if they were ever referred to as “English or British”
LikeLike
Hannu, if we were in a pub, this would be the point at which I’d slap you heartily on the back and buy you a pint.
Cheers! 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed good sir, and let the next round be on me!
Cheers 🙂
LikeLike
their base culture (see above) complete with bad cooking
LOL!
Anyway, like people already pointed out, Irish people are not British. They’re kind of big on this one. So I know it’s a satire and all, but I don’t advise saying it in a pub in Ireland, if you know what I mean. 😛
There was an interesting interview with the Inception actors Cillian Murphy (Irish) and Tom Hardy (English)* and a clueless reporter referred to both of them as British. Then Murphy corrected him: “No, I’m Irish”. But the reporter went on: “Well, yes, that’s what I’m saying, you’re both British”. Murphy: “No, I’m Irish”. It went for a while.
*- I believe Hardy’s mother is Irish, but he’s officially from England.
Anyway, I think this sort of articles are important to make people realize how utterly ridiculous, bad, confusing and plain wrong/incorrect many of the stereotypical portrayals of the non-Western cultures are.
This is a good exercise and can be applied to other things (for example, a horrible way other cultures are treated in movies).
Somebody should write an article on how a movie about American history would be like if made by the outsiders the same way American treat other people’s history. A hint: a movie about September 11 would be set in Los Angeles, Canada with everybody speaking German as their native language.
PS- And I can’t believe British Person wants a cookie for Brits stopping the slave trade. Also, slave trade does not equal stopping slavery itself.
LikeLike
“You’re wrong about the ancestry of the peoples of the British Isles, btw. There’s been some mixture of related European populations, sure, but the stock hasn’t actually changed drastically in millenia. Look up Cheddar Man.”
– – –
it was Cheddar Man’s mtDNA that was extracted and found to match several of the living residents of Cheddar Valley. Mitochondrial DNA in itself is only a small percentage of one’s genetic makeup, and is passed down virtually *unchanged* from mother to child, generation after generation (except for changes due to rarely occurring genetic mutations). Ethnic and / or racial intermixing in a family has *no effect* on this type of DNA.
So, no, just because matches were found today for the mtDNA of a man who died 9000 years ago, it cannot be taken as evidence that his (very) distant modern day relatives are necessarily similar to him in phenotype, race or ethnic “stock”.
LikeLike
@bulanik:
The term Brittish were applied to the people who lived in the island before anglosaxon immigration from 400’s on wards. They called themselves as cymri, romans cymborgi, which means roughly “fellow men”. Anglosaxons called them Wheala, from which the name welsh comes from. These brittish people called the recent immigrants as Angles, from which came Angleland, that is England, and sometimes the sais, from saxons. The name angles sticked and thus became the english.
The original brittish were divided in several nations, or tribes according to the romans, from which the iceni of the east, the belgae of the south and the brigantes of the Pennines were the most famous. The most warlike and wild brittish were the votadini of the sothe east Scotland, from Forth of Firth dfown to the Hardian wall. They remained independent up to the 600’s when the anglosaxons finally conquered their homelands.
When in 550’s onwards anglosaxons were able to penetrate more towards to west, they split the former brittish nation apart. In the south west they became cornish and in the west welsh. Starthclyde around present day Glasgow and Rheged west of Pennines remained longer. Rheged up till 600’s and Strathclyde up till 800’s when it was absorbed into the Scotland.
The scotts, squiths, scuiths came across the sea from the west in 500’s. Originally they came from present day Ulster. They occupied the most western islands and were considered by the northern brittish as pirates etc. Eventually in 700-800’s the scotts joined the pictish tribes and unified under a single ruler and thus became the scottish nation we know today. Eventually the britts of Starthclyde joined in too.
To make the issue even more confused, the Hollywood praised William Wallace was not orginally from Scotland. His family hailed from Wales, which the ame Wallace means: wallace, walles, wales. He was also known as William of Wallace, aka Wales.
The real braveheart, the one the scotts today see as their true champion, was Robert the Bruce, who himself was an old scottish stock which had intermarried into english nobility and was a vassal of the english king BUT also scottish nobility. He also fought the english and gained the scottish independency in 1314 when his army defetaed the english at Bannockburn. Robert the Bruce along his brother also claimed kingship across the Ireland because as scotts they hailed from the island originally and thus were also irish nobility.
The irish remained divided into several kingdoms and groups up untill the english conquests began in medieval times. It was only then that these several irish groups began to see themselves as single ethnic group vis a vis the english. The english occupation of Ireland and opression created the modern irish sense of being one nation and one people.
The most recent idea of the people is that the average people, the farmers and small folk, never moved or were replaced but adopted and survived in the areas overtaken by the anglosaxons. They intermarried, adpoted the language, names etc. and from this fusion the modern english were born. Similar stuff happened in Scotland too, where the small folk remained at place when the nobility moved back and forth. But because of the remoteness the scotts were able to hold on with their customs and language for much longer. The cornish submitted in 900’s.
LikeLike
LOL at the ‘bad cooking’ bit!
LikeLike
It’s funny that soccer is a British word.
LikeLike
The Irish people here in UK hate being called ‘British’ or ‘English’… and there’s a lot of the old Irish jokes that English people love to tell you over a pint lol.. If anything, being Irish in the UK is like being black!!
The UK is isn’t that bad at all.. but it’s politics and history is.. which is why prior to the Human Rights Act, the UK parliament were supreme in their Sovereignty and could make a law on just about anything they wanted. (Quite dangerous if you ask me) … And that they did!!
LikeLike
[…] The British (1603- ) were Europeans who lived on the islands of Britain and Ireland off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. The British lived in the United Kingdom, made up of four kingdoms. S… […]
LikeLike
[…] The British (1603- ) were Europeans who lived on the islands of Britain and Ireland off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. The British lived in the United Kingdom, made up of four kingdoms. Since each kingdom had its own language, “British” is more a political term than a cultural one. The four kingdoms were:EnglishWelshScottishIrish […]
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] British, the […]
LikeLike