iAmCaffeine wrote:Who classes Canadians and South Americans as just American?
I've seen cases where American can refer to the entire North American continent.
Remember in the case of the British isles, populations were always somewhat fluid over the early centuries. Here is a map of the population makeup in Roman times.
MIgrations, invasions, the fucking French Normans, all play a role in the population shifts over the centuries, something you don't see in the Americas because to an extent both Canada and the United States in their brief histories tended to put cultures into regional blenders and distributed them somewhat evenly all around the country. Mexico, on the other hand, is a different problem. I don't think they acknowledge that they were French at one point.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:46 am
by mrswdk
lol, since when was the island of Ireland traditionally populated by Scots? The historic population of Ireland were Gaels. Scots were from the region now known as Scotland (land of the Scots, ho hum).
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:30 pm
by TA1LGUNN3R
mrswdk wrote:lol, since when was the island of Ireland traditionally populated by Scots? The historic population of Ireland were Gaels. Scots were from the region now known as Scotland (land of the Scots, ho hum).
I thought the Scots were a tribe from northern Ireland who came in and fornicated with and/or killed the native Picts of what is now Scotland? I thought i read that somewhere once. Could be wrong.
-TG
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:23 pm
by mrswdk
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
mrswdk wrote:lol, since when was the island of Ireland traditionally populated by Scots? The historic population of Ireland were Gaels. Scots were from the region now known as Scotland (land of the Scots, ho hum).
I thought the Scots were a tribe from northern Ireland who came in and fornicated with and/or killed the native Picts of what is now Scotland? I thought i read that somewhere once. Could be wrong.
-TG
Had to Google but apparently the Romans referred to a particular Gaelic clan who migrated across to what is now Scotland as 'scoti', and that tribe then grew, amalgamated with the Picts, and they all became the Scots.
So it's sort of right to say that 'scots' were originally a group of people from Ireland, but also totally wrong to say that Ireland was inhabited by Scots. It was inhabited by Gaels, one group of whom moved across the sea and got called 'scoti' for some reason.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:29 pm
by mrswdk
It's like saying that the Spanish gave California its name, therefore nietzsche is a Californian.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:30 pm
by mrswdk
Although from what I remember of playing San Andreas there's probably some truth to that.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:43 pm
by owenshooter
enough said...-Bj
Re: Britishness
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:18 pm
by Symmetry
mrswdk wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
mrswdk wrote:lol, since when was the island of Ireland traditionally populated by Scots? The historic population of Ireland were Gaels. Scots were from the region now known as Scotland (land of the Scots, ho hum).
I thought the Scots were a tribe from northern Ireland who came in and fornicated with and/or killed the native Picts of what is now Scotland? I thought i read that somewhere once. Could be wrong.
-TG
Had to Google but apparently the Romans referred to a particular Gaelic clan who migrated across to what is now Scotland as 'scoti', and that tribe then grew, amalgamated with the Picts, and they all became the Scots.
So it's sort of right to say that 'scots' were originally a group of people from Ireland, but also totally wrong to say that Ireland was inhabited by Scots. It was inhabited by Gaels, one group of whom moved across the sea and got called 'scoti' for some reason.
It'd be more correct to say that the tribes were pretty fluid, and Roman bureaucracy codified, and helped preserve certain groups and borders. As Rome's influence waxed and waned, other kingdoms and ethnic groups found their own identities and affiliations, codified and preserved in different ways. TG's map isn't wrong, exactly, but it's an approximation of a rough idea of a complicated time.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:34 pm
by TA1LGUNN3R
It ain't my map.
-TG
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:33 am
by mrswdk
And it is wrong.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:10 pm
by WingCmdr Ginkapo
No it isnt.
Now if Tzor would kindly take back his jibe about the french. I dont care what history says, we aint goddamn french!
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:12 pm
by WingCmdr Ginkapo
mrswdk wrote:Had to Google
Me and Symm actually know our own history. So please shut up.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:13 pm
by muy_thaiguy
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Had to Google
Me and Symm actually know our own history. So please shut up.
Tea, crumpets, and Camelot?
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:17 pm
by WingCmdr Ginkapo
muy_thaiguy wrote:
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Had to Google
Me and Symm actually know our own history. So please shut up.
Tea, crumpets, and Camelot?
Tum dilly scrumptious
Re: Britishness
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:55 pm
by tzor
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:No it isnt.
Now if Tzor would kindly take back his jibe about the french. I dont care what history says, we aint goddamn french!
The Normans (Norman: Nourmands; French: Normands; Latin: Normanni) were the people who in the 10th and 11th centuries gave their name to Normandy, a region in France. They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman"[1]) raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway who, under their leader Rollo, agreed to swear fealty to King Charles III of West Francia.[2] Through generations of assimilation and mixing with the native Frankish and Gallo-Roman populations, their descendants would gradually adopt the Carolingian-based cultures of West Francia, ultimately resulting in their own assimilation into the Romance society.[3] The distinct cultural and ethnic identity of the Normans emerged initially in the first half of the 10th century, and it continued to evolve over the succeeding centuries.[4]
There’s no doubt that the historical question of whether the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 can be considered a good or a bad thing for England in particular or for Christendom in general is a question worth asking, perhaps even answering. What is not in question is the Christian character of Anglo-Saxon England, in terms of the saints and the literature she produced. Pace Belloc, Tolkien could have shown that England, prior to the Conquest, was a beacon of Christian enlightenment which was not in need of the baptism of blood which the Normans unleashed at the battle of Hastings.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:28 am
by waauw
Re: Britishness
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:28 am
by mrswdk
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Had to Google
Me and Symm actually know our own history. So please shut up.
Are you saying you think it is correct to label the entirety of the island of Ireland as 'Kingdom of the Scots'?
Re: Britishness
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:53 pm
by WingCmdr Ginkapo
mrswdk wrote:
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
mrswdk wrote:Had to Google
Me and Symm actually know our own history. So please shut up.
Are you saying you think it is correct to label the entirety of the island of Ireland as 'Kingdom of the Scots'?
It is acceptable on a map that also calls Scotland Picts, England Angles and Wales Britons.
It is embaressing every time you try and offer facts or opinions on behalf of Britain. I may not like Symm, but he isnt an embarassment. You are.
The map's boundaries for Pict, Angle and Briton territories are roughly reasonable, the map's declaration that the Gaels were 'Scots' is not. Just because one or multiple clans in Ireland were referred to as 'scoti' by the Romans does not mean that all Gaels were actually Scots. By that logic all Native Americans are actually Indians, because that's what Columbus called them.
This is not the first time you have waxed lyrical about Ireland despite clearly knowing almost nothing about the island. No doubt we can look forward to you going into hibernation for another month or two before returning adamant that the island itself was dredged from the ocean by Queen Elizabeth I as a reserve for the leprechauns to live on.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:49 am
by Serbia
mrswdk wrote:adamant that the island itself was dredged from the ocean by Queen Elizabeth I as a reserve for the leprechauns to live on.
Your tone suggests you believe this to be untrue??
The map's boundaries for Pict, Angle and Briton territories are roughly reasonable, the map's declaration that the Gaels were 'Scots' is not. Just because one or multiple clans in Ireland were referred to as 'scoti' by the Romans does not mean that all Gaels were actually Scots. By that logic all Native Americans are actually Indians, because that's what Columbus called them.
This is not the first time you have waxed lyrical about Ireland despite clearly knowing almost nothing about the island. No doubt we can look forward to you going into hibernation for another month or two before returning adamant that the island itself was dredged from the ocean by Queen Elizabeth I as a reserve for the leprechauns to live on.
Did you even read the links you posted? The term Gael was never used until the 18th century and it never referred to a race until the 19th century. Ireland as the Kingdom of the Scots is perfectly accurate. The Scots from Ireland eventually conquered Scotland while the Vikings from Gillipigland conquered Ireland. I didn't know any of that, it came from the links YOU provided.
Calling them Gaels is like calling hieroglyphs emojis.
Re: Britishness
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:22 pm
by Symmetry
ITT, MRSDWK once again shows that his UK knowledge is mostly cribbed from half-read wikipedia articles.
The map's boundaries for Pict, Angle and Briton territories are roughly reasonable, the map's declaration that the Gaels were 'Scots' is not. Just because one or multiple clans in Ireland were referred to as 'scoti' by the Romans does not mean that all Gaels were actually Scots. By that logic all Native Americans are actually Indians, because that's what Columbus called them.
This is not the first time you have waxed lyrical about Ireland despite clearly knowing almost nothing about the island. No doubt we can look forward to you going into hibernation for another month or two before returning adamant that the island itself was dredged from the ocean by Queen Elizabeth I as a reserve for the leprechauns to live on.
Did you even read the links you posted? The term Gael was never used until the 18th century and it never referred to a race until the 19th century. Ireland as the Kingdom of the Scots is perfectly accurate. The Scots from Ireland eventually conquered Scotland while the Vikings from Gillipigland conquered Ireland. I didn't know any of that, it came from the links YOU provided.
Calling them Gaels is like calling hieroglyphs emojis.
You have the gaul to talk about gaels, galling conversation alround. Bring back the jones. Doom, you look pretty damn silly with that clown dog outfit. Behave
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:39 pm
by jonesthecurl
Incidentally, the Angles (and Saxons, Jutes, etc) were not in possession of that area in "Roman times."
Re: Britishness
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:55 pm
by mrswdk
No the map must be correct, Symmetry confirmed it.
