This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Dec 2004 and 22 October 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:English people/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Alun 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I know before I begin that some will condemn talk of an English ethnicity as 'racist' or 'xenophobic' or even 'non-existant', but I maintain that such a thing exists, and that it can be positive. The definition of 'ethnic' is:
On language and culture: Englishness certainly exists, on nation and religion: there at least is something worth saying, on race: I say English is not a racial label.
Nothing in this article is meant to be derogatory to other ethnic groups, or to say that English people are better, but only to point out where differences exist and (with fear of sounding too 'fluffy') to celebrate them.
Reclaiming the English identity from racists and xenophobes is not easy, but to sit back and claim 'it does not exist' while all about us the Irish and Scots and Welsh and Manx and Cornish celebrate their identity will only serve to prolong the problem.
Please help to sever the link between Englishness and hate, and try not to sweep all talk under the carpet.
--195.92.168.173, 20 Dec 2004
I have no problems with the notion of an "English identity." However, this article had a bit too much P.O.V. with the comments about political correctness trying to water down the identity--views, by the way, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves. I tried to edit it a bit to give it more of a "neutral" flavor.-- MegaSilver 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this page to exist? Most of its contents are currently explained, in better detail, under England — and the only argument I can see for this page would be as a way of fleshing stuff out which there isn't room for at England. I'm sure it must be unintentional, but at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. Doops 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Which English are you refering to? The English that includes bangle, bungalow, chutney, cummerbund, dinghy, dungaree, kedgeree, khaki, punch, purdah, thug and verandah. Or bahlti, a style of food invented in Birmingham? The English that includes algebra, assassin, candy, chemistry, coffee, macrame, massage, safari, sherbet and spinach? The English that includes Bagel, Cinnamonand messiah? Or, indeed, the English that has hundreds of words of Greek origin? The thing that makes English nationhood so damnably hard to pin down is that it refuses to be pinned down and stereotyped. So adjusting to the 'English way of life' is, to put it mildly, problematic. Accepting Englishness does not mean rejecting anything else and that some people are capable of being proud of their roots as of their home is not grounds to deny them Englishness. We just don't do it like that. American writer Branda Maddox put it rather well:
When I came to live in Britain in the Kennedy era, I pontificated freely about the superiority of the American way. "In my country..." I began one day, when a well-spoken young man interrupted me to say, "In my country, we don't say 'in my country'."
The polite rebuke struck me with the force of revelation. There was an alternative to mindless patriotism. In a tolerant, mature, self-confident country it was not necessary to put your hand on your heart to say you loved it, or even to refer to it with possessive adjectives. Have you ever heard anyone say "our Queen" or even "our prime minister"? (Guardian, 28-9-2001)
Icundell 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Now I think we can get to the nitty gritty. I think a useful start would be to move the article back to English people, since this isn't really about nations but about identity (hence my revised opening para :"The English are people descended for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the culture of England (Latin: Anglia).") ie, I think it could form the main article associated with the English identity section of the main England page, as well being as a fork of Immigration to the United Kingdom. It could deal with how the many and varied groups of migrants have shaped - and been shaped by - being in, or of, England. The last few lines of Germans is particularly interesting, since it seems to me to be dealing with issues that the English dealt with a very long time ago, while Ethnic German a makes a good point about using 'ethnic' definitions being problematic. Icundell 16:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we'll have to ask a friendly sysop, since English people redirects to England. Like the idea of the OED definition - have added it already. I'm off for xmas now. Have a good one. Icundell 14:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've tweaked your inclusion of English (people). It's a bit....um...POV and I would favour merging the good bits into this, or vice versa. Part of the problem is that the term 'ethnic' is being sprayed about with gay abandon in many other articles, when what is really meant is cultural and linguistic. Icundell 15:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I suggest that this article be merged with English (people). Both articles describe the same thing and the name of this article (English nation) sounds like nationalism as opposed to the neutral English (people), which just describes a people. REX 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I JUST DID IT! REX 14:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
16:22 Monday 14th March 2005:
Can'tStandYa(
Talk) changed the paragraph:
The English are an
ethnic group descendent for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the
culture of
England (
Latin: Anglia).
The
OED defines an English person as: one who is English by
birth,
descent or
naturalization
to:
The English are an ethnic group originating in the lowlands of Great Britain descending originally predominantly from Angles, and Saxons (known commonly as Anglo-Saxons), Danes, and Celts. The name is used for those who have descent from these tribes from over 1,600 years ago until the present.
and justified it by saying:
this article is about the english (anglo saxons) not english nationals
Can this be explained?
This seems to be limiting English ethnicity to
White
Christians!
Does this mean that
African,
Asian and
Chinese families who have lived in
England for enough generations so that today they differ from Anglo-Saxon families only by skin colour are not English?
This sounds suspiciously like
RACISM!
It may not be of course.
REX 17:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lumos3 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the sections
Reclaimed Identity and
Lost Identity are a little
POV? I think that that could be remedied by merging both sections into one. Also I believe that sentences such as However, due to a large increase in immigration in the late 20th century emphasis was placed on making England an "inclusive" nation. Thus, openly displayed English symbols or describing oneself as "ethnically English" became frowned upon. Some felt they were being maligned simply for to not wanting to discard their rich ethnic heritage for enforced government "multiculturalism". are VERY
POV and sound like something from a
BNP member's speech!
REX 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree REX and have made some changes please feel free to make more. Bretagne 44
if you are going to include all Cornish folk as being English then you will need to explain why on the 2001 UK census and the 2004 Cornwall schools census you could describe your ethnicity as Cornish as opposed to English. Also why the Council of Europe is requesting that the Cornish be placed under the terms of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I have made a few short edits to make readers aware that it is not a clear cut issue and added links so they can further explore the issue. Bretagne 44 22/3/05
I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.
Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the
Talk page of the
English (people) article and it began with if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person, what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the
English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people.
REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall.
I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.
So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen.
Bretagne 44 22/3/05
So, what does all this have to do with the article? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Bishopric and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you.
Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000.
1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the article, which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the article is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above.
You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation"
Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. Bretagne 44 24/3/05
I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the article is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate? REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornish ethnicity. Bretagne 44 24/3/05
To sum up:
REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall?
I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why?
How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity".
Are we reaching a deal here REX? Bretagne 44 25/3/05
There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. Bretagne 44 26/3/05
The external links have an English nationalism feel about them, i have added a few other links to english political parties and to sites with inormation on England and English history. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
Should there be a different page on English nationalism? There seems to be a number of different political and cultural groups now that have an English national back bone. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
I can make small contributions but thats about it, i would say go ahead and create the page and i will feed back on it. Bretagne 44 7/4/05
Are all British people English and all English people British? If someone says "British" does this include any other places other than England? Jaberwocky6669 11:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I am Cornish not English, i have been brought up to think that way by my community and family and i am not alone. The UK census of 2001 and the schools census of 2004 both recorded Cornish ethnicity. Many other organisations and institutions in Cornwall record Cornish ethnicity. The Council of Europe recognises Cornish ethnicity and the the UK and EU recognises the Cornish language as a minority language.
Debate over Bretagne 44 7/4/05
Cornish is not an ethnicity and neither is English. One can subjectify themselves as Cornish as a person associated with that region but that doesn't make an ethnicity. The same applies to being English. If you are Cornish, and as Cornwall is a part of England, then you are English. If you are English, then you are British. If you are Welsh or Scottish, you are British too. People from all over Britain, England, Cornwall, whatever, are descended primarily from the pre-Celtic neolithic hunter gatherers, our first ancestors. How we identify ourselves doesn't detract from that fact. To be Cornish and identify as Cornish and not English is a matter of personal opinion, not of blood. Asian, African, other European people, etc., that live in England can be English but that's not an ethnic classification. Ethnically, we're all Britons; nationality-wise, we're British regardles of ethnicity and if you want to be Cornish, be Cornish - you can of course relate to your region, county, area and the local culture of that place or the culture from that place no matter in which time you have chosen to base it. - User:Enzedbrit
First of all excellent points regarding ethnicity in the paragraph above. Ethnicity is a very ambiguous topic in my opinion and i have to agree that there is no such thing as english ethnicity - what is meant by this would more accurately be described as anglo-saxon ethnicity and the great majority of the British population (minus about 500,000 in Wales and 60,000 in Scotland) are of anglo-saxon ethnicity simply because their language and culture is anglo-saxon. Now people quite often claim to be this that and everything else on the basis of lineage but until a gene which transfers language and culture down the generations is discovered these claims are nothing more than delusions.
You both need to check the definition of ethnicity i think. Ethnicity is not a question of DNA or race, It is rather like nationality. The above contributors should be aware that if there is no Cornish or English ethnicity then there is certainly no British ethnicity.
Nationality exists in the minds of men, its only conceivable habitat. Outside men's minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a manner of looking at oneself not an entity an sich. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.
Cornwall Council's Feb 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour. The Assembly petition was signed by 50,000 people, which is the largest expression of popular support for devolved power in the whole of the United Kingdom (and possibly Europe) and according to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. I support my claim with this BBC story [2]
As for Cornwall being part of England then all i can suggest is read this article.
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Is their any reason why this article is 'English(people)' and not 'English people' like the rest of the people articles in Wikipedia? Falphin 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Who do these figures cover? I don't believe there are that many Americans who have parents who lived in England, and I would be hesitant to describe 3rd and 4th generation immigrants to the US as English. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any subject of the English King apart from Jews if present in that time, were considered English. No need to get into colonial peoples who have a separate heritage that should not be raped of them. Does everybody really want to be an Englishman? LOL, I have Anglo-French descent with minor Germanic/Celtic elements in the descent's periphery. These lines comprise Anglicans, Congregationalists, Catholics and Huguenots by religion. Doesn't this speak for the truth in volumes of identity in my genetic origins? No offence, but some genetic native of Tuvalu isn't English and could never be so. Do they even have ANGLIAN descent?! Cornish people had been English ever since their land had been county status, as Welsh had been English since they became an English principality. Still, it is much like Burgundians or Bretons as French. To be technical here, no Indian was a subject of the English Crown during colonial times...not even Pocahontas. Black slaves weren't subjects, but labouring property to be dispenced with as chattel. Why rob these people of their roots? English as an ethnicity is reserved for the past in which England was a sovereign body. What we have nowadays, are British people. Any non-European who has been a subject of the Crown that uses London as its national capital, would at the very most be considered British or American even as it seems to be. TheUnforgiven 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a debate that has spilled over from the Cornish people page.
As to the numbers of Cornish people why don't we look at the page for English people to see what solution they came up with to this problem, maybe latter we could look at the pages for Welsh people, Scottish people etc etc.
Significant populations in: England:
49 million
United States:
24.5 million (2000) 1
Australia:
3.5 million (2001)
Canada:
1.5 million (2001) 2
Ireland:
c. 105,000
What is good for the goose is good for the gander Bretagne 44 26/7/05
I have in the notes the likelihood that 24.5 million is an underestimate of the number of Americans with English ancestry. Actually it is a certainty. 281 million Americans cited 287 ethnicities, implying that they are nearly all pure blooded descedents of one immigrant group, which is obviously not the case. I suspect that English ancestry was one of the most under-reported of all, as it seems to the only hythenated American identity which is not valued by the American establishment. Bhoeble 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that the British act in such a vulgar and Loutish manner when abroad?...They travel in same sex packs, drunk, violent and out of control. They ruin every place they visit. whatis wrong with their culture??
I have removed the Scots from the listing of related ethnic groupings. Unlike the other peoples listed the ethnic Scots are not Germanic but a Gaelic,Celtic people and should no more be listed than the Welsh, Irish or any other non-Germanic ethnic group.
Well actually Lowland Scots are a Germanic people, are of Germanic culture, speak a Germanic language and are of Germanic descent (the English Kingdom of Northumbria was up to the Firth of Forth including Edinburgh and we know that the Anglo-Saxons practiced ethnic cleansing). REX 23:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I have said nothing about us all being ethnically britons - i believe you are confusing a point made by someone else. The Scots existed as an ethnic group (the name 'Scots' or 'Scotii' was the nomenclature used by the Romans for the gaelic speaking peoples) before the creation of Scotland. People too easily confuse 'nationality' with ethnic grouping. It is possible to be of Scots nationality (i.e. being born and brought up of Scotland) but Scots ethnicity is a seperate thing - in the same way that being English does not in itself make one anglo-saxon.
As for the Lowland Scots it depends entirely on how you define it. If you do it in terms of language (which is how i would define ethnicity )then 99% of Scots are english/anglo-saxon but using the same rationale the Welsh (about 80% of whom are english speaking/anglo saxon) and Irish (of whom about 95% are anglo-saxon/english speaking) should also be listed. However this article seems to define ethnicity in terms of lineage in which case the Scots (whether lowland or otherwise) should not be counted. The only part of Scotland to have been Anglo-Saxon throughout history is the Lothians which constitute a VERY small part. The great, great majority of the Lowlands and consequently Lowlanders were gaelic speaking/of gaelic lineage. So basically all i want is consistency. If you are going to include Scots of any kind then the Irish and Welsh should similiarly be included.
That is a post left unsigned by someone else. Did you just think i was being rather egotistical in describing my 'own' points as ' excellent' ? ;-D
I dont think theres any denying that ethnicities are relevant and exist. I do, however, think that the concept is one that is hugely misunderstood and widely abused by those who wish to be something they are not - a common phenomenon in the USA from what i gather where everyone will describe themselves as being 'Irish' or 'Hispanic' or 'Scottish' etc etc despite speaking only english and being totally american in culture and upbringing. Another example is one of which i have direct experience. The vast majority of those living in Scotland are ethnically english (bear in mind i define ethnicity primarily on the basis of language) - however if you suggest this is the case most will be greatly offended despite the fact that they cannot speak the Scottish language nor will they have any great experience of Scottish culture. Few things are as abused or open to delusion as the ethnicity of a person or group of people.
I would consider Culture to be one of the most important defining factors in determining ones ethnicity although it is obviously a rather less tangible concept and harder to 'measure' than language. As you say though genes are totally irrelevant.
Added the following link
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook seems to indicate that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. That would amount to 50,529,058 individuals, wouldn't it? Why then does the article say that there are 50,000,000 English people in Great Britain? Isn't that a gross inaccuracy? Where did that figure come from? Rexhep Bojaxhiu 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the population of England may be less than the number of English people in Great Britain. There may be English people in Scotland or Wales. I know that it sounds a bit far-fetched, but at least this figure is verifiable. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 07:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you read WP:V you will find the following:
Isn't the CIA World Factbook a reliable source? All I want to know is where did that 50,000,000 figure come from. Is it original research, or is it to be found in the work that has already been published by a reputable publisher (sic.), such as the CIA World Factbook? Anyway, it't up to you obviously, all I'm doing is making a suggestion. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that it makes any difference. At least we cas say that we got this figure from somewhere. Personally, I don't think that anyone actually reads those figures and those who do don't believe them. The CIA World Factbook's statistics appear in almost every country's demographics page. So using it here as well won't really make any difference. If you are not 100% sure, then maybe you should enter it as an estimate. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
According to the CIA World Factbook there are two ethnic groups in the Republic of Ireland: Celtic and English. We know that the people who have some English background will be Anglicans (ie Church of Ireland). Ireland's population is 4,015,676 and 3% of those are Anglicans. Thus, there are 120,470 people in the Republic of Ireland who have an English background (I am excluding the Anglo Norman settlers, as they were Catholics and they will no longer have any knowledge of their English ancestry as there is nothing to distinguish them from the Celtic Irish, so they don't count). I will leave Northern Ireland out as that will be included in the UK figure. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Not really, the Scottish settlers were Presbyterians whereas the English settlers were Anglicans. All we want is a verifiable figure. The Irish certainly are not Anglicans or Presbyterians. They are Catholics. Religion, in this case, is a very good way of distinguishing the origin of the population of Ireland. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
My dear Arwel, I am not referring to the Anglo-Norman settlers; I am referring to the Plantations of Ireland, where Plantations of English Anglicans (now adherents of the Church of Ireland) and later Scottish Presbyterians moved to Ireland and are now today's the protestants of Ireland. The Anglo-Normans will undoubtedly be ethnically Irish now, totally oblivious to their English ancestry. I am not trying to call them English, now they are Irish. Race has nothing to do with it; it is the knowledge that the Anglicans in Ireland have, that they have an English background, just like the Irish and the Welsh in America. I know that the figure may be slightly inaccurate, but it is an estimate. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry but these figures are ridicules, it is not acceptable to us total population figures for England as numbers of English, even a very brief review of the situation will reveal that. As to the other figures well what can i say. where are the numbers from, what census provided them, are you really trying to say 30 million people in the US think of themselves as English? I just hope it is not some form of English nationalism that is behind these outrageous figures.
populations in: Great Britain:
United States:
Canada:
Australia:
South Africa:
South America:
Ireland:
Bretagne 44 17:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to express my opinion that what you are saying may not necessarily be accurate. I you check the entries on most other ethnic groups: Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Norwegians, Italians, Jews etc you will see that they have figures on people of the same ethnicity who now (and maybe for generations before them) may have had lived in other countries (in America, Australia etc). Why aren't their figures being opposed? Why are the English being singled out from all other ethnic groups? Are they the chosen people or something? I think that given that consistency should be shown throughout Wikipedia and that double standards displayed until now be scrapped. You cannot deny that Americans of English descent (or partly of English descent) acknowledge their English origin, just in the same way that Swedes who have lived in America for generations still acknowledge their Swedish background. I'll have you know that they do. George W. Bush accepted that award from The Queen by virtue of his English background. That doesn't mean that he, or any other American or Australian of English origin, owes allegiance to the UK. Certainly not, just in the same way that Chinese people who live in England now, who have not renounced their Chinese background, but do not profess to be loyal to the Chinese government. And the accusations of English nationalism! You're the one to talk User:Bretagne 44, you who claims that Cornwall is not legally part of England!!! What a load! And then you come over here and make accusations of English nationalism, which is virtually inexistent on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. That may be the explanation for the poor electoral performance of English nationalist parties. Quite simply because the vast majority of English people couldn't care less for English nationalism, just the same as in Cornwall, which would explain the poor result (from the Cornish nationalist perspective) of the 2001 census. How much was it again? Oh yes, 7%. Arwel, why don't you explain the American figures on Welsh people? You don't seem to be objecting there, double standards? I admit that certain figures in this report are unverifiable and an investigation is required (which will be undertaken by me) to find out what the real figures are. We know that the websites [6], [7], [8] and [9] do state reliable figures and therefore the figures for the UK, USA, Australia and Canada are verifiable. It remains to be seen what I shall find for the other groups. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you are saying that total population figures should be used for numbers of English in England? Great that means i can use the total population of Cornwall for numbers of Cornish. Your argument is a straw dog and you are showing the most incredible double standards. I suggest people to read what has been written by GrandfatherJoe on the discussion page of Cornish people. the fact remains that the 50 million figure for England is wrong and totally unsupported, it should be removed and replaced with a "?" Try and stay on the subject as opposed to launching inot personal attacks (which are oh so brave over the internet) Bretagne 44 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Bretagne 44, I think that you should know that the figure of English people in the UK should come from the CIA World Factbook, which says that a certain percentage of the population of the UK are English. That is how that number should be calculated. The current number is guesswork. As for Cornwall, I do not know. You will have to wait for the People's Republic of Cornwall to be established and once it has gained recognition from the USA, then you can go to the Cornwall entry of the World Factbook and you will find a percentage there. Where are the double standards? There is a figure for the English quoted by a reputable publisher. Can the same be said for the Cornish? I would also refrain from making personal attacks yourself, before telling other people what to do. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
So now we have to copy the CIA world fact book or what ever? Don't think so! Why don't we write to the UK census people for the numbers who wrote English in 2001, surely you would agree to that?
REX your figures are for people with English ancestry that does not mean they are English people. They quite probably have ancestry from other ethnic groups so does that mean they have multiple ethnicity and can be counted in Irish, Scots etc etc peoples stats? That and it is one source so according to you it is original research. Oh by the by these figures don't come from Britannica or Encarta, like you have said in the past therefore we can't use them. Finally REX, grandfather joe and rex thing a me bob, is it possible to debate with just one of your sock puppets at a time. Joe at work REX at home what confusion. Bretagne 44 19:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV because the figures are now fully verifiable and referenced. If there is some other problem then please be specific, and preferably suggest a solution. zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Rather than reply to your email I thought I would post it here so that others may judge you for themselves (or at least have a good laugh). My comments (above), by the way, referred to the old English Nation article.
From: Jean-Guy Laframboise <toneetonetone@yahoo.com> Subjeck: You ignorant little twat
My dear little Ian,
I happen to be the primary author of the wikipedia page on the English people that you seem to find so erroneous and hate-filled.
As both an avid student of European history, as well as someone with eight letters behind my name, let me direct your attention to something called "the facts".
The "English people", as with virtually every ethnic group spanning this planet, represent a composite ethnic profile, meaning that they are a single unit derived from multiple sources. To make the issue a tad more manageable for you young Ian I've come up with a simple analogy. Imagine one were to combine the colours blue and yellow; would the colour derived from such combination (a certain shade of what we call "green") be any less a distinct color to the human eye? Of course not. And nobody would dispute this, because absolutely nothing is at stake with defining the colour green, magenta, taupe or fuscia.
When it comes to ethnicity however, and especially when one (very slightly evolving) group has laid claim to a part of this earth for thousands of years, it leads those other groups seeking both its "dis-establishment" and displacement, to kick up quite a storm when such group defines itself in an exclusivist sense.
To those who engage in hand-wringing over this issue I simply say "tough titties". There IS an indigenous ethnic group in England, who are culturally, religiously, and genetically very distinct from the recent tidal wave from the third world that swamped the island in the past 50 years.
As to your comment regarding supposed black Britons who have been in England for 300 years, I can't help but laugh at how someone with even a quarter of a brain could ascribe to such a ridiculous belief. There were at most a couple of thousand blacks who settled permanently in Britain in the pre-world war II era, almost all were male, and of those, very few ever found willing indigenous English mates to intermarry with. (try to imagine the stigma) As a result, very little admixture ever occurred, and any that did take place led to the rapid genetic assimilation of a handful of non-Europeans. (which incidentally would explain Cavalli-Sforza's findings on the genetic placement of the English within the world's populations.
Apart from a few thousand Normans in the years immediately following William's conquest, a few hundred dutch tailors in the early modern period, a few thousand Huguenots in the wake of the French crown's repeal of the Edict of Nantes, and a few thousand Polish soldiers post WWII, there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years. Only a simpleton, ignoramus or person acting in bad faith would see otherwise.
As much as it might pain you to accept it, the English are, heretofore, a fairly homogeneous, endogamous, north-western European ethnic grouping that is quite naturally defined in opposition to other ethnic groupings around the world. Just as the Estonians, Poles, Germans, Dutch, Romanians and Greeks represent distinct groupings, so too do the English.
-TW
P.S. Don't bothering replying to this email, as I have decided that your lack of knowledge regarding this issue makes you categorically unqualified to debate me on it. Listen and learn. That's all you should be doing for the time being. Posted by: Icundell 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years.
What rubish!
1) The English who ever they are have mixed with the neighbouring ethnic groups, the Britons and Gaels.
2) Genetic research shows that most modern UK citizens carry a majority of DNA from the pre germanic population of Britons.
3) A self identifying English ethnic group has not existed for thousands of years. For a long time people regarded themselves as Wessaxons, Angles, Jutes etc etc. Bretagne 44 16:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, I think that those references to the religious minorities may be a bit POV. They may belong in the article Demographics of England, but I'm not sure that they belong here. This article is about the English ethnic group, not every inhabitant of England. With that approach one could say that whoever moves to England automatically becomes English. In that case if, say Qatada took British citizenship, would that make him English? It would make him British, but English? A question is do those people view themselves a English? I know that they view themselves as British and thay are British, but why are we mixing the recent immigrants with the indeginous population? As far as I know, ethnic minorities in the UK all call themselves British; not English, Scottish, Cornish or Welsh. REX 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean that we can call the European immigrants to America indigenous peoples of the Americas? It sounds like it. REX 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
My point is that if an immigrant from say India does not become assimilated, but behaves exactly like Indians behave (Indian culture), how is he/she English if he/she is of foreign culture? That is why noe can call a black person whose family have liven in England for three or four generations English, but recent immigrants from Hong Kong who have not adopted English culture are not English, they are Chinese. REX 14:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:English people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*Broad range of subtopics; some subtopics received slightly scant coverage.
|
Last edited at 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20 Dec 2004 and 22 October 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:English people/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Alun 21:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I know before I begin that some will condemn talk of an English ethnicity as 'racist' or 'xenophobic' or even 'non-existant', but I maintain that such a thing exists, and that it can be positive. The definition of 'ethnic' is:
On language and culture: Englishness certainly exists, on nation and religion: there at least is something worth saying, on race: I say English is not a racial label.
Nothing in this article is meant to be derogatory to other ethnic groups, or to say that English people are better, but only to point out where differences exist and (with fear of sounding too 'fluffy') to celebrate them.
Reclaiming the English identity from racists and xenophobes is not easy, but to sit back and claim 'it does not exist' while all about us the Irish and Scots and Welsh and Manx and Cornish celebrate their identity will only serve to prolong the problem.
Please help to sever the link between Englishness and hate, and try not to sweep all talk under the carpet.
--195.92.168.173, 20 Dec 2004
I have no problems with the notion of an "English identity." However, this article had a bit too much P.O.V. with the comments about political correctness trying to water down the identity--views, by the way, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves. I tried to edit it a bit to give it more of a "neutral" flavor.-- MegaSilver 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this page to exist? Most of its contents are currently explained, in better detail, under England — and the only argument I can see for this page would be as a way of fleshing stuff out which there isn't room for at England. I'm sure it must be unintentional, but at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface. Doops 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Which English are you refering to? The English that includes bangle, bungalow, chutney, cummerbund, dinghy, dungaree, kedgeree, khaki, punch, purdah, thug and verandah. Or bahlti, a style of food invented in Birmingham? The English that includes algebra, assassin, candy, chemistry, coffee, macrame, massage, safari, sherbet and spinach? The English that includes Bagel, Cinnamonand messiah? Or, indeed, the English that has hundreds of words of Greek origin? The thing that makes English nationhood so damnably hard to pin down is that it refuses to be pinned down and stereotyped. So adjusting to the 'English way of life' is, to put it mildly, problematic. Accepting Englishness does not mean rejecting anything else and that some people are capable of being proud of their roots as of their home is not grounds to deny them Englishness. We just don't do it like that. American writer Branda Maddox put it rather well:
When I came to live in Britain in the Kennedy era, I pontificated freely about the superiority of the American way. "In my country..." I began one day, when a well-spoken young man interrupted me to say, "In my country, we don't say 'in my country'."
The polite rebuke struck me with the force of revelation. There was an alternative to mindless patriotism. In a tolerant, mature, self-confident country it was not necessary to put your hand on your heart to say you loved it, or even to refer to it with possessive adjectives. Have you ever heard anyone say "our Queen" or even "our prime minister"? (Guardian, 28-9-2001)
Icundell 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Now I think we can get to the nitty gritty. I think a useful start would be to move the article back to English people, since this isn't really about nations but about identity (hence my revised opening para :"The English are people descended for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the culture of England (Latin: Anglia).") ie, I think it could form the main article associated with the English identity section of the main England page, as well being as a fork of Immigration to the United Kingdom. It could deal with how the many and varied groups of migrants have shaped - and been shaped by - being in, or of, England. The last few lines of Germans is particularly interesting, since it seems to me to be dealing with issues that the English dealt with a very long time ago, while Ethnic German a makes a good point about using 'ethnic' definitions being problematic. Icundell 16:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we'll have to ask a friendly sysop, since English people redirects to England. Like the idea of the OED definition - have added it already. I'm off for xmas now. Have a good one. Icundell 14:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've tweaked your inclusion of English (people). It's a bit....um...POV and I would favour merging the good bits into this, or vice versa. Part of the problem is that the term 'ethnic' is being sprayed about with gay abandon in many other articles, when what is really meant is cultural and linguistic. Icundell 15:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I suggest that this article be merged with English (people). Both articles describe the same thing and the name of this article (English nation) sounds like nationalism as opposed to the neutral English (people), which just describes a people. REX 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I JUST DID IT! REX 14:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
16:22 Monday 14th March 2005:
Can'tStandYa(
Talk) changed the paragraph:
The English are an
ethnic group descendent for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the
culture of
England (
Latin: Anglia).
The
OED defines an English person as: one who is English by
birth,
descent or
naturalization
to:
The English are an ethnic group originating in the lowlands of Great Britain descending originally predominantly from Angles, and Saxons (known commonly as Anglo-Saxons), Danes, and Celts. The name is used for those who have descent from these tribes from over 1,600 years ago until the present.
and justified it by saying:
this article is about the english (anglo saxons) not english nationals
Can this be explained?
This seems to be limiting English ethnicity to
White
Christians!
Does this mean that
African,
Asian and
Chinese families who have lived in
England for enough generations so that today they differ from Anglo-Saxon families only by skin colour are not English?
This sounds suspiciously like
RACISM!
It may not be of course.
REX 17:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lumos3 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the sections
Reclaimed Identity and
Lost Identity are a little
POV? I think that that could be remedied by merging both sections into one. Also I believe that sentences such as However, due to a large increase in immigration in the late 20th century emphasis was placed on making England an "inclusive" nation. Thus, openly displayed English symbols or describing oneself as "ethnically English" became frowned upon. Some felt they were being maligned simply for to not wanting to discard their rich ethnic heritage for enforced government "multiculturalism". are VERY
POV and sound like something from a
BNP member's speech!
REX 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree REX and have made some changes please feel free to make more. Bretagne 44
if you are going to include all Cornish folk as being English then you will need to explain why on the 2001 UK census and the 2004 Cornwall schools census you could describe your ethnicity as Cornish as opposed to English. Also why the Council of Europe is requesting that the Cornish be placed under the terms of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I have made a few short edits to make readers aware that it is not a clear cut issue and added links so they can further explore the issue. Bretagne 44 22/3/05
I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.
Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the
Talk page of the
English (people) article and it began with if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person, what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the
English (people) page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people.
REX 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the Constitutional status of Cornwall.
I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.
So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen.
Bretagne 44 22/3/05
So, what does all this have to do with the article? The article is about the people of England. If Cornwall is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from Durham, we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of English etc. from that of, say Kent. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though Durham was a County Palatine and a Bishopric and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that England should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate Cornish (people) article? REX 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English. Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you.
Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000.
1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity. 1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the article, which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the Germans, the Dutch, the Lowland Scots, the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the Danes, the Norwegians etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the article is not necessarily linked to England, so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. REX 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above.
You wrote: "If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation"
Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation. OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the English (people) page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. REX 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England". I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate. Bretagne 44 24/3/05
I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary IF they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the article is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of England, it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in Scotland everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention England and Wales). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate? REX 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out. "Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity? You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity. We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses. I propose the following the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim Cornish ethnicity. Bretagne 44 24/3/05
To sum up:
REX 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall?
I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why?
How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity".
Are we reaching a deal here REX? Bretagne 44 25/3/05
There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. REX 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. Bretagne 44 26/3/05
The external links have an English nationalism feel about them, i have added a few other links to english political parties and to sites with inormation on England and English history. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
Should there be a different page on English nationalism? There seems to be a number of different political and cultural groups now that have an English national back bone. Bretagne 44 23/3/05
I can make small contributions but thats about it, i would say go ahead and create the page and i will feed back on it. Bretagne 44 7/4/05
Are all British people English and all English people British? If someone says "British" does this include any other places other than England? Jaberwocky6669 11:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I am Cornish not English, i have been brought up to think that way by my community and family and i am not alone. The UK census of 2001 and the schools census of 2004 both recorded Cornish ethnicity. Many other organisations and institutions in Cornwall record Cornish ethnicity. The Council of Europe recognises Cornish ethnicity and the the UK and EU recognises the Cornish language as a minority language.
Debate over Bretagne 44 7/4/05
Cornish is not an ethnicity and neither is English. One can subjectify themselves as Cornish as a person associated with that region but that doesn't make an ethnicity. The same applies to being English. If you are Cornish, and as Cornwall is a part of England, then you are English. If you are English, then you are British. If you are Welsh or Scottish, you are British too. People from all over Britain, England, Cornwall, whatever, are descended primarily from the pre-Celtic neolithic hunter gatherers, our first ancestors. How we identify ourselves doesn't detract from that fact. To be Cornish and identify as Cornish and not English is a matter of personal opinion, not of blood. Asian, African, other European people, etc., that live in England can be English but that's not an ethnic classification. Ethnically, we're all Britons; nationality-wise, we're British regardles of ethnicity and if you want to be Cornish, be Cornish - you can of course relate to your region, county, area and the local culture of that place or the culture from that place no matter in which time you have chosen to base it. - User:Enzedbrit
First of all excellent points regarding ethnicity in the paragraph above. Ethnicity is a very ambiguous topic in my opinion and i have to agree that there is no such thing as english ethnicity - what is meant by this would more accurately be described as anglo-saxon ethnicity and the great majority of the British population (minus about 500,000 in Wales and 60,000 in Scotland) are of anglo-saxon ethnicity simply because their language and culture is anglo-saxon. Now people quite often claim to be this that and everything else on the basis of lineage but until a gene which transfers language and culture down the generations is discovered these claims are nothing more than delusions.
You both need to check the definition of ethnicity i think. Ethnicity is not a question of DNA or race, It is rather like nationality. The above contributors should be aware that if there is no Cornish or English ethnicity then there is certainly no British ethnicity.
Nationality exists in the minds of men, its only conceivable habitat. Outside men's minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a manner of looking at oneself not an entity an sich. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.
Cornwall Council's Feb 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour. The Assembly petition was signed by 50,000 people, which is the largest expression of popular support for devolved power in the whole of the United Kingdom (and possibly Europe) and according to a recent Morgan Stanley Bank survey, 44 per cent of the inhabitants of Cornwall believe themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. I support my claim with this BBC story [2]
As for Cornwall being part of England then all i can suggest is read this article.
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Is their any reason why this article is 'English(people)' and not 'English people' like the rest of the people articles in Wikipedia? Falphin 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Who do these figures cover? I don't believe there are that many Americans who have parents who lived in England, and I would be hesitant to describe 3rd and 4th generation immigrants to the US as English. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Any subject of the English King apart from Jews if present in that time, were considered English. No need to get into colonial peoples who have a separate heritage that should not be raped of them. Does everybody really want to be an Englishman? LOL, I have Anglo-French descent with minor Germanic/Celtic elements in the descent's periphery. These lines comprise Anglicans, Congregationalists, Catholics and Huguenots by religion. Doesn't this speak for the truth in volumes of identity in my genetic origins? No offence, but some genetic native of Tuvalu isn't English and could never be so. Do they even have ANGLIAN descent?! Cornish people had been English ever since their land had been county status, as Welsh had been English since they became an English principality. Still, it is much like Burgundians or Bretons as French. To be technical here, no Indian was a subject of the English Crown during colonial times...not even Pocahontas. Black slaves weren't subjects, but labouring property to be dispenced with as chattel. Why rob these people of their roots? English as an ethnicity is reserved for the past in which England was a sovereign body. What we have nowadays, are British people. Any non-European who has been a subject of the Crown that uses London as its national capital, would at the very most be considered British or American even as it seems to be. TheUnforgiven 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a debate that has spilled over from the Cornish people page.
As to the numbers of Cornish people why don't we look at the page for English people to see what solution they came up with to this problem, maybe latter we could look at the pages for Welsh people, Scottish people etc etc.
Significant populations in: England:
49 million
United States:
24.5 million (2000) 1
Australia:
3.5 million (2001)
Canada:
1.5 million (2001) 2
Ireland:
c. 105,000
What is good for the goose is good for the gander Bretagne 44 26/7/05
I have in the notes the likelihood that 24.5 million is an underestimate of the number of Americans with English ancestry. Actually it is a certainty. 281 million Americans cited 287 ethnicities, implying that they are nearly all pure blooded descedents of one immigrant group, which is obviously not the case. I suspect that English ancestry was one of the most under-reported of all, as it seems to the only hythenated American identity which is not valued by the American establishment. Bhoeble 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is it that the British act in such a vulgar and Loutish manner when abroad?...They travel in same sex packs, drunk, violent and out of control. They ruin every place they visit. whatis wrong with their culture??
I have removed the Scots from the listing of related ethnic groupings. Unlike the other peoples listed the ethnic Scots are not Germanic but a Gaelic,Celtic people and should no more be listed than the Welsh, Irish or any other non-Germanic ethnic group.
Well actually Lowland Scots are a Germanic people, are of Germanic culture, speak a Germanic language and are of Germanic descent (the English Kingdom of Northumbria was up to the Firth of Forth including Edinburgh and we know that the Anglo-Saxons practiced ethnic cleansing). REX 23:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I have said nothing about us all being ethnically britons - i believe you are confusing a point made by someone else. The Scots existed as an ethnic group (the name 'Scots' or 'Scotii' was the nomenclature used by the Romans for the gaelic speaking peoples) before the creation of Scotland. People too easily confuse 'nationality' with ethnic grouping. It is possible to be of Scots nationality (i.e. being born and brought up of Scotland) but Scots ethnicity is a seperate thing - in the same way that being English does not in itself make one anglo-saxon.
As for the Lowland Scots it depends entirely on how you define it. If you do it in terms of language (which is how i would define ethnicity )then 99% of Scots are english/anglo-saxon but using the same rationale the Welsh (about 80% of whom are english speaking/anglo saxon) and Irish (of whom about 95% are anglo-saxon/english speaking) should also be listed. However this article seems to define ethnicity in terms of lineage in which case the Scots (whether lowland or otherwise) should not be counted. The only part of Scotland to have been Anglo-Saxon throughout history is the Lothians which constitute a VERY small part. The great, great majority of the Lowlands and consequently Lowlanders were gaelic speaking/of gaelic lineage. So basically all i want is consistency. If you are going to include Scots of any kind then the Irish and Welsh should similiarly be included.
That is a post left unsigned by someone else. Did you just think i was being rather egotistical in describing my 'own' points as ' excellent' ? ;-D
I dont think theres any denying that ethnicities are relevant and exist. I do, however, think that the concept is one that is hugely misunderstood and widely abused by those who wish to be something they are not - a common phenomenon in the USA from what i gather where everyone will describe themselves as being 'Irish' or 'Hispanic' or 'Scottish' etc etc despite speaking only english and being totally american in culture and upbringing. Another example is one of which i have direct experience. The vast majority of those living in Scotland are ethnically english (bear in mind i define ethnicity primarily on the basis of language) - however if you suggest this is the case most will be greatly offended despite the fact that they cannot speak the Scottish language nor will they have any great experience of Scottish culture. Few things are as abused or open to delusion as the ethnicity of a person or group of people.
I would consider Culture to be one of the most important defining factors in determining ones ethnicity although it is obviously a rather less tangible concept and harder to 'measure' than language. As you say though genes are totally irrelevant.
Added the following link
Bretagne 44 14:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook seems to indicate that 83.6% of the population of the UK are English. That would amount to 50,529,058 individuals, wouldn't it? Why then does the article say that there are 50,000,000 English people in Great Britain? Isn't that a gross inaccuracy? Where did that figure come from? Rexhep Bojaxhiu 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the population of England may be less than the number of English people in Great Britain. There may be English people in Scotland or Wales. I know that it sounds a bit far-fetched, but at least this figure is verifiable. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 07:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you read WP:V you will find the following:
Isn't the CIA World Factbook a reliable source? All I want to know is where did that 50,000,000 figure come from. Is it original research, or is it to be found in the work that has already been published by a reputable publisher (sic.), such as the CIA World Factbook? Anyway, it't up to you obviously, all I'm doing is making a suggestion. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that it makes any difference. At least we cas say that we got this figure from somewhere. Personally, I don't think that anyone actually reads those figures and those who do don't believe them. The CIA World Factbook's statistics appear in almost every country's demographics page. So using it here as well won't really make any difference. If you are not 100% sure, then maybe you should enter it as an estimate. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
According to the CIA World Factbook there are two ethnic groups in the Republic of Ireland: Celtic and English. We know that the people who have some English background will be Anglicans (ie Church of Ireland). Ireland's population is 4,015,676 and 3% of those are Anglicans. Thus, there are 120,470 people in the Republic of Ireland who have an English background (I am excluding the Anglo Norman settlers, as they were Catholics and they will no longer have any knowledge of their English ancestry as there is nothing to distinguish them from the Celtic Irish, so they don't count). I will leave Northern Ireland out as that will be included in the UK figure. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Not really, the Scottish settlers were Presbyterians whereas the English settlers were Anglicans. All we want is a verifiable figure. The Irish certainly are not Anglicans or Presbyterians. They are Catholics. Religion, in this case, is a very good way of distinguishing the origin of the population of Ireland. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
My dear Arwel, I am not referring to the Anglo-Norman settlers; I am referring to the Plantations of Ireland, where Plantations of English Anglicans (now adherents of the Church of Ireland) and later Scottish Presbyterians moved to Ireland and are now today's the protestants of Ireland. The Anglo-Normans will undoubtedly be ethnically Irish now, totally oblivious to their English ancestry. I am not trying to call them English, now they are Irish. Race has nothing to do with it; it is the knowledge that the Anglicans in Ireland have, that they have an English background, just like the Irish and the Welsh in America. I know that the figure may be slightly inaccurate, but it is an estimate. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry but these figures are ridicules, it is not acceptable to us total population figures for England as numbers of English, even a very brief review of the situation will reveal that. As to the other figures well what can i say. where are the numbers from, what census provided them, are you really trying to say 30 million people in the US think of themselves as English? I just hope it is not some form of English nationalism that is behind these outrageous figures.
populations in: Great Britain:
United States:
Canada:
Australia:
South Africa:
South America:
Ireland:
Bretagne 44 17:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to express my opinion that what you are saying may not necessarily be accurate. I you check the entries on most other ethnic groups: Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Norwegians, Italians, Jews etc you will see that they have figures on people of the same ethnicity who now (and maybe for generations before them) may have had lived in other countries (in America, Australia etc). Why aren't their figures being opposed? Why are the English being singled out from all other ethnic groups? Are they the chosen people or something? I think that given that consistency should be shown throughout Wikipedia and that double standards displayed until now be scrapped. You cannot deny that Americans of English descent (or partly of English descent) acknowledge their English origin, just in the same way that Swedes who have lived in America for generations still acknowledge their Swedish background. I'll have you know that they do. George W. Bush accepted that award from The Queen by virtue of his English background. That doesn't mean that he, or any other American or Australian of English origin, owes allegiance to the UK. Certainly not, just in the same way that Chinese people who live in England now, who have not renounced their Chinese background, but do not profess to be loyal to the Chinese government. And the accusations of English nationalism! You're the one to talk User:Bretagne 44, you who claims that Cornwall is not legally part of England!!! What a load! And then you come over here and make accusations of English nationalism, which is virtually inexistent on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. That may be the explanation for the poor electoral performance of English nationalist parties. Quite simply because the vast majority of English people couldn't care less for English nationalism, just the same as in Cornwall, which would explain the poor result (from the Cornish nationalist perspective) of the 2001 census. How much was it again? Oh yes, 7%. Arwel, why don't you explain the American figures on Welsh people? You don't seem to be objecting there, double standards? I admit that certain figures in this report are unverifiable and an investigation is required (which will be undertaken by me) to find out what the real figures are. We know that the websites [6], [7], [8] and [9] do state reliable figures and therefore the figures for the UK, USA, Australia and Canada are verifiable. It remains to be seen what I shall find for the other groups. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you are saying that total population figures should be used for numbers of English in England? Great that means i can use the total population of Cornwall for numbers of Cornish. Your argument is a straw dog and you are showing the most incredible double standards. I suggest people to read what has been written by GrandfatherJoe on the discussion page of Cornish people. the fact remains that the 50 million figure for England is wrong and totally unsupported, it should be removed and replaced with a "?" Try and stay on the subject as opposed to launching inot personal attacks (which are oh so brave over the internet) Bretagne 44 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Bretagne 44, I think that you should know that the figure of English people in the UK should come from the CIA World Factbook, which says that a certain percentage of the population of the UK are English. That is how that number should be calculated. The current number is guesswork. As for Cornwall, I do not know. You will have to wait for the People's Republic of Cornwall to be established and once it has gained recognition from the USA, then you can go to the Cornwall entry of the World Factbook and you will find a percentage there. Where are the double standards? There is a figure for the English quoted by a reputable publisher. Can the same be said for the Cornish? I would also refrain from making personal attacks yourself, before telling other people what to do. GrandfatherJoe ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
So now we have to copy the CIA world fact book or what ever? Don't think so! Why don't we write to the UK census people for the numbers who wrote English in 2001, surely you would agree to that?
REX your figures are for people with English ancestry that does not mean they are English people. They quite probably have ancestry from other ethnic groups so does that mean they have multiple ethnicity and can be counted in Irish, Scots etc etc peoples stats? That and it is one source so according to you it is original research. Oh by the by these figures don't come from Britannica or Encarta, like you have said in the past therefore we can't use them. Finally REX, grandfather joe and rex thing a me bob, is it possible to debate with just one of your sock puppets at a time. Joe at work REX at home what confusion. Bretagne 44 19:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV because the figures are now fully verifiable and referenced. If there is some other problem then please be specific, and preferably suggest a solution. zzuuzz (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Rather than reply to your email I thought I would post it here so that others may judge you for themselves (or at least have a good laugh). My comments (above), by the way, referred to the old English Nation article.
From: Jean-Guy Laframboise <toneetonetone@yahoo.com> Subjeck: You ignorant little twat
My dear little Ian,
I happen to be the primary author of the wikipedia page on the English people that you seem to find so erroneous and hate-filled.
As both an avid student of European history, as well as someone with eight letters behind my name, let me direct your attention to something called "the facts".
The "English people", as with virtually every ethnic group spanning this planet, represent a composite ethnic profile, meaning that they are a single unit derived from multiple sources. To make the issue a tad more manageable for you young Ian I've come up with a simple analogy. Imagine one were to combine the colours blue and yellow; would the colour derived from such combination (a certain shade of what we call "green") be any less a distinct color to the human eye? Of course not. And nobody would dispute this, because absolutely nothing is at stake with defining the colour green, magenta, taupe or fuscia.
When it comes to ethnicity however, and especially when one (very slightly evolving) group has laid claim to a part of this earth for thousands of years, it leads those other groups seeking both its "dis-establishment" and displacement, to kick up quite a storm when such group defines itself in an exclusivist sense.
To those who engage in hand-wringing over this issue I simply say "tough titties". There IS an indigenous ethnic group in England, who are culturally, religiously, and genetically very distinct from the recent tidal wave from the third world that swamped the island in the past 50 years.
As to your comment regarding supposed black Britons who have been in England for 300 years, I can't help but laugh at how someone with even a quarter of a brain could ascribe to such a ridiculous belief. There were at most a couple of thousand blacks who settled permanently in Britain in the pre-world war II era, almost all were male, and of those, very few ever found willing indigenous English mates to intermarry with. (try to imagine the stigma) As a result, very little admixture ever occurred, and any that did take place led to the rapid genetic assimilation of a handful of non-Europeans. (which incidentally would explain Cavalli-Sforza's findings on the genetic placement of the English within the world's populations.
Apart from a few thousand Normans in the years immediately following William's conquest, a few hundred dutch tailors in the early modern period, a few thousand Huguenots in the wake of the French crown's repeal of the Edict of Nantes, and a few thousand Polish soldiers post WWII, there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years. Only a simpleton, ignoramus or person acting in bad faith would see otherwise.
As much as it might pain you to accept it, the English are, heretofore, a fairly homogeneous, endogamous, north-western European ethnic grouping that is quite naturally defined in opposition to other ethnic groupings around the world. Just as the Estonians, Poles, Germans, Dutch, Romanians and Greeks represent distinct groupings, so too do the English.
-TW
P.S. Don't bothering replying to this email, as I have decided that your lack of knowledge regarding this issue makes you categorically unqualified to debate me on it. Listen and learn. That's all you should be doing for the time being. Posted by: Icundell 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
there has really been virtually no exogamy practiced by the English, thus making them a virtual archetype of an ethnic group, brewing in their own self-contained ethnic cauldron for thousands of years.
What rubish!
1) The English who ever they are have mixed with the neighbouring ethnic groups, the Britons and Gaels.
2) Genetic research shows that most modern UK citizens carry a majority of DNA from the pre germanic population of Britons.
3) A self identifying English ethnic group has not existed for thousands of years. For a long time people regarded themselves as Wessaxons, Angles, Jutes etc etc. Bretagne 44 16:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, I think that those references to the religious minorities may be a bit POV. They may belong in the article Demographics of England, but I'm not sure that they belong here. This article is about the English ethnic group, not every inhabitant of England. With that approach one could say that whoever moves to England automatically becomes English. In that case if, say Qatada took British citizenship, would that make him English? It would make him British, but English? A question is do those people view themselves a English? I know that they view themselves as British and thay are British, but why are we mixing the recent immigrants with the indeginous population? As far as I know, ethnic minorities in the UK all call themselves British; not English, Scottish, Cornish or Welsh. REX 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean that we can call the European immigrants to America indigenous peoples of the Americas? It sounds like it. REX 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
My point is that if an immigrant from say India does not become assimilated, but behaves exactly like Indians behave (Indian culture), how is he/she English if he/she is of foreign culture? That is why noe can call a black person whose family have liven in England for three or four generations English, but recent immigrants from Hong Kong who have not adopted English culture are not English, they are Chinese. REX 14:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:English people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
*Broad range of subtopics; some subtopics received slightly scant coverage.
|
Last edited at 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)