Talk:English people/Germans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Germans

This may have been addressed before, but heh, tis a free country. The German people represent, not only the Genesis of the English, but also the closest (more or less) living relatives, even linguistically speaking. The Saxons are from Germany and still live there; the English language is as closely related to LoW German as to Frisian and Dutch (which are forms of Low German-Franconian). In any case, Enzedbrit has questioned what I know... is it necessary to print qualifications? If so, let me know. Otherwise, let me say that I'm someone who wants Dreaden and Coventry NOT to get in the wat of a reasonable response...

The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from north western Europe, covering the lands that is now north west Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. Germany is a large country that encompasses many former tribal areas that have had nothing to do with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Some sources even say that the lands whence the Anglo-Saxons came were completely depopulated as the villagers moved to Britain, thus the link to modern Germany would have been lost. The percentage of Anglo-Saxon DNA in the modern day English people has been shown to be significant but not too large and in most parts of England (and naturally Britain) overshadowed by the much larger indigenous component and others such as Norwegian. The Germans have developed as a people and have migrated around their own country due to influences mostly from mainland Europe and not from its north west. To link the Germans with the English is to imply that people were moving from Germany to England and this is just not true. I repeat my statement made to my edits: this has nothing to do with the war. If you feel that it has, then this is an issue you should address yourself with others of a similar ilk. You are confusing the fact that the Angles and Saxons were Germanic with being 'German'. This would appear a very simple mistake but it does not cement an ethnic link. English and British culture is vastly different from German culture and culture is a major defining point of ethnicity as well. I fail to see a link that should exist between the two and I cannot see any justification for the omission of Germans being 'prejudice' although if one were trying to prove an anti-German element in these pages then this will feed that need to see oppression at whatever cost.

The English language is Germanic, but it is spoken natively in all British countries and is as much a defining point of being English as it can be for being Scottish or Welsh. The article though is not about the language but the people. The English people are a British people and the link to the other British nations is the only clearly defined ethnic link; all links elsewhere are left to debate and speculation. A link between modern English and modern Germans will exist but to include Germans means that one has just as much of a mandate to also include French, Italians, Spanish and others, all of whom have provided migrants to Britain in ancient times and influenced its culture. Enzedbrit 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously a point there. Linguistically both peoples are related since they both speak Germanic languages, the main difference being in the fact that English was much latinized mainly by the French Normans (More that fifty per cent of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin, while the other half of the vocabulary, its grammar and phonetics are Germanic). The problem arises if we want to consider genetic links between the two peoples. If it is accepted that the majority of the English descend from the Native inhabitans of the Isles, then they have less in common than their languages may imply. On the other hand, if we analyze the paternal and maternal lineages of the English and the Germans, they are not very different, but the same could be said in relation to other Europeans. HCC.

The German people may have moved around, but this is equally true of virtually all other European peoples. So the arguement is basically invalid that the Germans are in some way "more" mixed, evolved than other Germanic peoples. If one includes the Frisians and the Dutch and Danes then one has to absolutely include Low Germans.

Then include the Low Germans as an ethnic group, or first rather discuss it on here, but do not add all Germans Enzedbrit 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from this there is the question of relationship to other peoples on the Isles. It is true that there is a closer genetic relatioship to the Celtic peoples; why not eliminate all the other non-insular peoples from the equation altogether? (Stpaul 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

There are no Celtic peoples but I know what you are trying to say and I agree with this argument and would be happy to see the whole 'related ethnic groups' section eliminated. Enzedbrit 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we must include it at all, I would tend to favour eliminating from the list all peoples not from the British Isles. It is obvious from anyone who is acquainted with those peoples that the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are much closer to each other than they are to any Continental Europeans, and have been freely mingling and inter-marrying for countless centuries or millennia. I would also suggest a similar removal from the equivalent lists for those ethnicities as well. TharkunColl 08:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems questionable either way: Continental people provided much of England's culture and language; Insular people share much of the genetic materials. I agree with Enzedbrit and Tharkun that this section is divisive and a touch ridiculous. However, as it's there, one has to include (Low Germans). For evidence, see The Isles, by Norman Davies, who shows the genetic and cultural ties to Lower Saxony. (Stpaul 08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Rather than link the Low Germans to the German People page, would it not make more sense to just link it to a section on Lower Saxony or to the dialect of that area? Other peoples are listed as 'related ethnic groups' whose pages are given as nations, languages or regions. Enzedbrit 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Are Low Germans an ethnic group? Or is it just a language classification? If they are not an ethnic group, then they have no place in a list of "related ethnic groups". It's true that much of English culture was seeded from Continental sources, and it is equally true that exactly the same applies to the non-English inhabitants of the British Isles. At one time what eventually became the British Isles was joined to Europe, so all of its indigenous population and culture is ultimately derived from European models. The point is this - whatever invaders the British population has absorbed, a distinctively insular culture has always developed. TharkunColl 10:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Cornish ethnicity is based on the fact that there is a distinct Cornish language and enough people to say that they identify with a Cornish 'identity'. In this respect, I think that there is every justification for Low Germans to be classified as an ethnicity, so maybe they are? Enzedbrit 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

By what you're are suggesting, that there is a distinctive insular culture that should not be related to the continental cultures, you suggest that the peoples of Britain are closely related to the detriment of continental relations. This is plainly false, as there are many cultural phenomenon shared by Scotland with ireland, say, and not with England, just as Morris Dancing has its origins in Germanic Europe and finds no equivalent elsewhere in Britain. But, you're right, there is no Low German ethnic group, but there is German one, a large proportion of whom speak Low German and are related, culturally and genetically to the English. Certainly, in Bremen or Schleswig the language spoken resemples English as much as Swabian or Swiss German. As I say, having the related groups is not a good idea, but if they must be there then the Germans must be there. The reason I believe that they're not is pure prejudice against Germans. 150 years ago there would be no arguement; all English people would have been happyto have been seen as related to the Germans.

Have changed the link BTW Enzedbrit. Hope it's ok. Now, about the French:-) (Stpaul 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

• I think it's best to include the Low German language and if you're comfortable with it too then that's even better. It's shows that 'difference'. What though about Scotland is shared with Ireland and not England? Remember, England has tartan as well, and Morris Dancing is found in Wales. I think though that when you look at continental Europe you can see how the British isles are this other cultural band, differing in everything from what they have and when they have their breakfast, to the fingers we use for our wedding rings. Erm, let's not talk about the French! Enzedbrit 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The peoples of the British Isles are far more similar to each other - culturaly, genetically, and linguistically (since virtualy all of them speak English) - than they are to Continental Europeans. This is not to say that they don't also share some traits with Europeans, and I never suggested that they don't. Clearly, the peoples of the British Isles and Europe together share more traits with each other than they do with Asians, for example. It's just a question of degree. What do we mean by "related"? Close relatives or more distant ones? What is the use of such a list anyway? If the list has any purpose at all, it is to show which peoples share significant and numerous traits with the English. Only the peoples of the British Isles fall into this category - through many hundreds (or thousands) of years of close proximity and intermingling (also, obviously, so do the peoples of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA, etc. - but they have already been excluded on the grounds that they don't count as ethnic groups in their own right). As for people in England 150 years ago being happy to count the Germans as related, even if true (and you have provided no evidence), I strongly suspect that they would still have regarded the Scots, Irish, and Welsh as much closer still. The fad for all things German - and it was never more than a fad - came about because a German dynasty, the Hanoverians, occupied the British throne. It did not exist in the Middle Ages for example, when the fad was for all things French (for very similar reasons). And in any case, linguistically English was originally a branch of North Sea Germanic (as was Frisian). German is not all that closely related. TharkunColl 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting passage in John Davies A history of Wales p. 66 ... the traditional belief that the Saxons killed or swept away the entire population of the territories overrun by them is wholly mistaken. In their desire to stress the essential Teutonism of the English nation, nineteenth-century historians such as Freeman and Green gave wide currency to that belief ... Thus there could be no blood connection between the English and the Celts. Indeed there were some English scholars who were reluctant to accept that the Irish and the Welsh were even Celts, for if they were they would be members, as were the Teutons, of the Indo-European family. Rhion 11:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• St Paul, I see where you're coming from but I agree with EPF. The Low Germans aren't identified as a distinct ethnic group although they definately will have a unique culture. Germans are far too broad and misleading to be linked to the English. I think that there should be no reference to German people in the related ethnic groups to the English because the Teutonic invasion really is covered sufficiently by the Frisians, Dutch and Danes and contrary to long-standing beliefs, the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain really didn't have as large of an impact on the people as once thought and although introduced the basis for modern English, Welsh and Scottish culture, those cultures were far altered far more by successive cultural periods. Again, I put forward my support to have this category removed completely due to the very nature of it and its ambiguity. Enzedbrit 09:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Enzedbrit's idea to remove the related category altogether. Indeed, this should be done for all "people" articles. (Stpaul 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree, unless we can find some verifiability for including it, like a book that gives a list of related ethnic groups, then it will only ever be a question of opinion. What exactly does related mean in this context?. Alun 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it should be removed, I think it merely needs to be defined what "related ethnic groups" entitles. Also, I feel its imperative to point out that the Anglo-Saxon invasions were the basis for English culture, but not Welsh and Scottish cultures. The Low Germans do have a unique regional identity just as other areas of Germany do, but they are still ethnic Germans. I understand why you would want to include "Low Germans" if they are genetically related to the English more than other Germans, but there hasn't been any studies confirming that they are related in the same extent as the Frisans or Danes. The sample from North Germany was taken from an area of Schleswig-Holstein that had both Frisian and Danish settlement (in fact it was originally part of Denmark). In a cultural and linguistic sense, it could be argued that the English are related to all Germans, not just Northern Germans. Epf 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the related peoples section as it is currently rendered looks okay. Just re-add Germans as the Angles and Saxons did make some valuable contributions and until there is much wider genetic testing, the results aren't 100%. After that it'll be just fine as it is. Just make sure people don't start editing the page by adding other peoples. Tombseye 05:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, the inclusion of Germans implies a relation between modern Germans and English that is stronger than what it should be. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes did contribute a lot to British history and culture and they are represented by the people of those modern lands: Netherlands, including a separate listing for Frisians, and Denmark. There was the talk of having an inclusion for Low Germans but as they don't see themselves as a separate ethnic group - to the best of our knowledge they don't - then this has been dropped. To include all Germans implies a bond which is much weakened through the separate histories of Britain and Germany and would welcome the inclusion of many other peoples. The line must be drawn. The English are most closely related to the other peoples of the British isles and when we start including the continent we find a weaker bond or one that is more concentrated to English people of certain geographic regions. If this section is to remain, then it must have a sense of credibility, and adding Germans does nothing for that credibility. Enzedbrit 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germans have had very little influence on the English

The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were North Sea Germanic speakers, and their only close linguistic relatives on the Continent are the Frisians. These groups are descended from the Ingaevones, whereas the modern Germans are descended from different branches of West Germanic entirely. Do not be confused that there are places called Saxony in Germany - it is just the name that has survived. The Danes and French, who each colonised parts of England during the Middle Ages, have had a much greater impact on English culture than the Germans. TharkunColl 12:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the French never colonized parts of England during the middle ages, the Normans did and they were a mix of Norse and French culture, while being almost entirely of Scandinavian descent. You do make a good point about the Germans though since modern Germans, both North and South have some different origins than the modern Frisians or Anglo-Saxon groups of the 4th - 6th centuries. Epf 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This grouping in of all Germans to associate them with the English is fradulent. People are again bringing in the idea of the cultural ties. I'm very sorry but I see very little similarities between any aspect of British culture and German culture, which is continental and quite distinct. Enzedbrit 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ladies & Gentlemen, I think that this has been drawn out quite long enough. We really should come to some agreement. Afterall, I am presuming that we're all British!!! We should act as such. As the links to peoples outside of the British isles are questionable at best, the language of England is spoken natively in all of Great Britain and all British people wake up to live their life in a common cultural way, how about we do for the English people page what has been done for the Welsh people page and restrict related ethnic groups to just the British peoples? These are the only non-questionable and obviously related peoples anyway. Enzedbrit 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would seriously agree with this. In terms of similarity, only the insular peoples come close. Everything else is other. TharkunColl 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alun, StPaul and EPF, what are your views on this? Enzedbrit 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to be the most practical solution: in terms of genetics it is probably unaguable, for the moment, that the insular peoples had closer relations to each other than to other European peoples. The question is, should other factors of relationship be included? the trouble is drawing the line, so it still seems the most practical solution. perhaps a footnote could explain that this means genetic relationships or some such? (Stpaul 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm not so sure about a footnote. The distinguishing feature in English ethnicity from Scottish or Welsh is a sense of identity and to a lesser extent cultural uniqueness and far less genetics as there isn't one. But drawing that line is indeed going to be the biggest problem. I think that we should be tough, or else one could list dozens and dozens of peoples. Enzedbrit 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I mean its obvious that the ethnic grops of the British Isles are more closely related to each other than to any continental groups (unless you include Bretons), but I think its also undeniable the link that the English and Scots have to the Frisians in terms of descent, culture and obviously language. The Germanic elements in the isles are more pronounced in England and Scotland than anywhere else which is why I dont think the groups listed (except whoever includes ethnic Germans) should not be removed. I don't see any problems with the way it currently is. I am not going to be on Wiki much over the next while though since I'm taking a break for the World Cup and its also summer here. Cheers, Epf 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out, in case people are liable to forget it, that the English language is spoken by all the nations of the British Isles. How this came about is not the point. The people of the British Isles have a shared genetic background, a shared history, a shared language, and a shared set of cultural traits. TharkunColl 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but so then do the Canadians, Jamaicans, Australians, etc. It's also worth pointing out that a large part of the cultural differences (real and imagined) that Highland-Scots, Welsh and Irish feel is down to an inherent linguistic in the recent past, a difference that still exists in north Wales and Western Ireland. The examples are part of modern culture, even if very often English people and others would prefer not to see them.

Further, if one goes down this road of language change, if the Normans hadn't invaded then we (or at laest the English) would be speaking a language virtually indistinguishable from Low German.

Unfortunatly, I can't help but feel that there is a certain amount of prejudice against the Germans; we can see the same phenomenon with the Poles and Czechs vis-a-vis the Russians on their respective cultural pages, as they too deny relationship. (Stpaul 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Well, I did point out some time ago that Australians, Canadians, Americans etc are indeed very close ethnically to the British, but they weren't included in the related ethnic groups section because they don't actually count as ethnic groups in their own right - i.e. they are, in effect, too close to us to be included! I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the Normans, because the fact is that they did invade, and the language did change. History is not made up of "what ifs". Similarly, if the Normans hadn't later gone on to conquer Ireland, then the modern Irish may not have been overwhelmingly English-speakers - again, this is irrelevant because history didn't work out like that. Ethnic identity is, among other things, a product of shared history. I am not, in any sense at all, claiming that the Welsh, Scots, and Irish are the same as the English - hell no! But all four of these peoples are far, far closer to each other collectively than they are to any other ethnic group. Whether or not there is a prejudice against the Germans is a moot point - if the English felt any kinship with them then they wouldn't feel so prejudiced in the first place! TharkunColl 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're just talking about feelings, then ask most Scots, Welsh or Irish how close they feel to the English, and you'll find that they don not feel close, indeed there is as much antipathy to England as English antipathy to Germany. Just look at the World Cup and who the other British will be supporting (clue: not England). (Stpaul 12:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

If you had actually read what I had written, you would know that I was not "just talking about feelings". It was a very minor point at the end of a lengthy paragraph concerning history, linguistics, and geography. But in any case, I disagree with your assessment (for what it's worth). The city where I live has a very large Irish community, and in all my dealings with them I have never once encountered any anti-English sentiment, nor visa versa. Usually quite the reverse in fact. As for the non-English nations of the British Isles not supporting England in the World Cup, who cares? Not all of us base our ethnic sensibilities around something as mind-numbing as football, you know. But just to refute your suggestion, I once saw a documentary about a gang of Scottish football hooligans who regularly travelled abroard supporting England, because Scotland hardly ever got anywhere. TharkunColl 12:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thaekun, YOU don't seem to listen, or indeed know what you are talking about sometimes. The point was that Norman-French transformed the language into what it is today; why not include the French as a related ethnic group (French being the majority language of the French).

as to the Irish community disliking the English, or the English disliking the Germans, that's exactly the problem with this particular section of the page, on every ethnic group page. The Finns refusr to be identified with the Swedes, the Czechs with the Russians, the Greeks with the Turks, the Swiss with the French, etc., etc., and you refusr to let the English be identified with the Germans because "if the English felt any kinship with them then they wouldn't feel so prejudiced in the first place". You are pandering to these prejudices. YOu refuse to allow the German relationship on the page because you are a little Englander who hates the continent and can only remember the war when dealing with Germany. (Stpaul 07:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

And once again you have completely failed to grasp the point here, and have resorted to ad hominem attacks. The English have little or nothing in common with the Germans that they don't also share with any Europeans. English traditions of common law, democracy, freedom of speech, tolerance, personal liberty, etc. etc. are notoriously absent from German history, which in every single area has taken a totally different attitude. You mention the French - yes, they are just as much like the English as the Germans. But they are much more like each other as Continentals. You accuse me of prejudice - perhaps the true prejudice is on your part, and your insistence that the English are like the Germans is actually a manifestation of your own anti-English sentiments. TharkunColl 07:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're showing ignorance: Where is this fabled English Democracy in history? England was not democratic until the 20th century. Common Law existed in Germany until the Napoleonic invasions. How can you criticise German tolerance, as it is the country of the origin of Consociationalism, as opposed to England where difference was detested. Once again, you display a prejudice based on Germany's poor 20th century and an willful gullibility concerning England's historical character as a country. If you want to go down that road, consider that if England ha been so democratic, tolerant, etc., why did they go and colonise half the world?

If you're still reading this though, good luck in the football!(Stpaul 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

"Consociationalism is a form of government involving group representation by elites". Thank you for that little gem, I've learnt a new word today. Don't fancy living in such a state much though, though you're welcome to if you wish. As for England's own history, as I've already told you it was the Normans who have been guilty of most of the excesses, not the English. It is England that has given the world such ideas as freedom of speech, individual rights, etc. And I've already told you twice that I can't stand football so you can shove that where the sun don't shine. It is you who are prejudiced and biased, not me. Stop vandalising this article simply because you don't like the English. TharkunColl 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I happened to notice in today's Independent, in an article on Germany by Simon Calder (English), the comment that Germany is "...the nation to which we are culturally closest". Rhion 12:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He is simply wrong. There's nothing more that needs to be said. TharkunColl 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, simply wrong? Fine arguement. Was it the Normans who invaded India/Scotland/South Africa/New Zealand etc? England gave the world individual rights, etc... where's the evidence. Seems to me that you just can't stand Germans and disagree with Simon Calder, Rhion and others because of prejudice, little else. Oh, and the article is not vandalised just because I don't share your xenophobic POV. (Stpaul 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

There you go, accusing me of xenophobia again. The truth is that your own prejudices are becoming embarrassingly clear. TharkunColl 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• St Paul, there is a point here. Why would anyone say that the English are most closely related to the Germans in terms of culture? Did this chap mean England or the United Kingdom when he said we were most closely related to Germans? If he meant England, then he is classing Scotland and Wales are other nations and in which case he's wrong as England is indistinguishable from Scotland and Wales except now in increasing forms of local government and in the case of Scotland, Scottish bank notes. Had he meant the United Kingdom, then Ireland is the country to which we are most similar. Looking at the way of life in the continent, I would say that the Dutch are closer to Britain culturally than the Germans. Enzedbrit 03:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey NZ. Tharkuncoll's arguements with me seem to have slipped onto the main pages. He has said that the only reason he won't have the Germans on the page is that he doesn't feel andything for them and he considers them all to be fascists. This is exactly the problem with Wikipedia; emotion and POV dressed up as fact. I ask you for your suppirt in bringing the debate back to a civilised tune, and to just ignore the Tharkun who is plainly a xenophobe and a nationalist.

The suggestion re keeping just insular groups seems the most logical, as I've stated, in terms of blood. In truth, for cultural questions, the continent cannot be ignored, neither Holland (which I agree is closest) Germany, the Frisians (closest linguistically) or the Danes. We need to make a decision based on sound editing, not the fact that some of us are uncomfortable with being close to Germany.

As to Wales and Scotland being indistinguishable from England;-) Doubt that'd be a popular suggestion elsewhere, but then, if you really believe that, why have them as a separate ethnic group at all. (Stpaul 07:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Well StPaul regardless of what a few brainless nationalists in Scotland or Wales might think, they are indistinguishable from England aside from what I've mentioned. I see the North East as closer to Scotland by geography and local character than I do the rest of England anyway. How can all England be different from Scotland or Wales. Have you been around the country? You know it's true ... As for them being a separate ethnic group, I am not favourable to this position as it makes us separate peoples as Germans are from French or Italians from Spaniards, when in reality we are separate 'artifically' through borders drawn by our Norman masters 1,000 years ago. Yet, I have lost the argument there and am making do with it: the separate ethnic group listings remain.

For Germany, my argument will thus always be that there are historical links but they are so weak compared to the other continental groups that we list. The differences between the British and the Germans might have widened the gap, but that gap was already there. We have confused Germany with Germanic for too long. Most of what is now Germany has nothing to do with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who travelled to Britain the same as most of France has nothing to do with the Normans that came 600 years later. What the English are are a British people very little changed from the genetic make-up of thousands of years ago. Again, this is old ground.

I love the Germans. I work with them at my university every day and have just finished top of my first trimester German course. I cannot think of a German I've met who was rude or impolite (can't say the same for the French but do know a few nice ones). I am glad though that the emphasis of English ethnicity, culture and identity is not across any sea, but lies in Britain and is unbreakably connected to the other British peoples. I wish that I could say something to counter what you don't like in the guise of the anti-German sentiment you have had posted to you which is uncalled for as it distorts truth and real history as we both agree, but that is someone's personal opinion. The best we can do is be vigilant and counter it with reason, which even though might be our own POV, we can get across kinder and more civilly. More British :) Enzedbrit 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One more this, I didm't mean this modern Swiss-Dutch-Austrian consociationalism, but the older version proposed by Johannes Althusius. Seems like Germany is the originator of live-and-let-live after all, eh Tharkun (Stpaul 07:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

"Tharkuncoll's arguements with me seem to have slipped onto the main pages. He has said that the only reason he won't have the Germans on the page is that he doesn't feel andything for them and he considers them all to be fascists." How dare you charactise my arguments as such! I have stated numerous times that there are many reasons why the Germans should not be included, and the question of "feelings" was just a minor, throwaway point. In order to build your case against me you are resorting to lies and propaganda. I don't give two hoots about conationalsocialism, it is just another tedious variation on corporatist statism which the Germans have been very good at over the centuries (and the French, for that matter). Well leave them to it! They have the right to run their countries however they like, as long as they don't interfere with us. They can experiment with ten million shades of autocracy and elitism as much as the want. These sorts of activities are wholly and utterly alien to the English mentality. TharkunColl 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Germans have been removed from the related peoples page along with other groups. I am glad of this! Very glad. I hope that people allow it to remain this way but I will now go and align it with the other British peoples. I don't see though that Channel Islanders should be listed. I had no idea that CIs saw themselves as a separate people. Enzedbrit 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germanism and the Third Reich as something English?

The English people are most connected as a historically singular entity, with those nations in pre-Jacobean personal union with England itself. This means; France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (the South or 'Geatland', as I remember my study of Canute and Beowulf). There are the Manx, but they were a subsidiary of Norway anyways for most of their pre-English time. Also, the general connection between England and other nations is summarily described by the Plantagenet web of power most often described as the Angevin Empire. That includes the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Castile-Leon/Spain through John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster or Philip II of Spain, the Holy Roman Empire via Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall or Sicily via Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster. I don't feel so tied to the modern United Kingdom so much as the Old England. All of us have English Plantagenet blood, most of us Tudor and the Jacobean era shrinks our royal connections with distant lands. I much prefer the Kingdom of England over the British Empire. This is coming from a Canadian-American, who nevertheless enjoys the Coat of arms of Canada for his immediate heritage and the Great Seal of the United States for his Roman/European heritage. One might say that I accept the Stuart confederacy in British history, but feel entirely alienated by the totalitarian machinations of the Hanoverians and other Germanists. England is defined as Angle-Land and not Saxland. The Angles were from Denmark, not Germany. So what if West Saxon kings followed Offa of Mercia? It was just a local shift of power and not of identity, the Saxons clearly a ruling minority amongst the clearly Scandinavian AKA Norman tribes of England. Tell a Whiggist and they'll scream their bloody heads off with political correctness about Saxon superiority and disdain for the French style of a Frankish France copied as an Anglish England. The Saxons may hate Charlemagne (Bloody Verdict of Verden), but every single one of them is his offspring today and even during the 1649/1689/1701/1707 co-opt of our identity to serve fat cat aristocrats and foreign princes. I don't care, even though my father's mom's maiden name is South Saxon. The Danevirke existed for a reason--to protect the Anglian tribe from Saxon incursions, but the Kings of Kent and Mercia loved the Franks. (Too bad so sad, Prussia and Austria--your fanatical hate of Denmark means nothing to precedent and truth!) Let's please avoid provincialist fratricides, or a cultural dependence on the Heptarchy and subkings like the Welsh Princes and Irish Kings or Scottish Clans. We are above this, if looking to the French model. It took oppressive social engineering to enact the present federation of 1707. Don't believe me? Just ask the Scottish and Irish! I'm not a goddamned Nazi! If England had its own way, we would have sided with Mussolini and not Hitler or Stalin. I am proud of my Greek roots with Brutus of Troy and Latin roots in the Romano-British, unlike the Germans. That being said, we are definitely our own people. It is sad that Denmark and England have Saxon monarchs, not Danish or Anglian ones. Long live the Capetian fascism and a French France! Out of all my ancestry, none am I more proud of than the Plantagenets! What have other dynasties done for us English, despite their Frankish blood?! Huh?! What's the difference between Anglians/English and Frisians/French, or Yngvi and Freyr? Lord Loxley 04:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We all know how plainly different the masses of English are, from the Germans. We are more proud of our Graeco-Roman (inc. Carolingian) and Celtic heritage than they, of which origins they have little. We are justly the heirs of the Norsemen, which Germans only pretend at in their jealousy. We have fought two world wars against the Germans, even forcing the alien Royals to change their surname and marital alliances. England has not been ruled by natives since the Jacobites were destroyed, since the Stuarts were a Scottish clan from Strathclyde (once part of Northumbria) and had Breton (British, you say?) roots. Every single Englishman has at least one Stewart or Fitzalan ancestor from before the Jacobean Union and a lot of Scottish or Breton commoner blood, but how many German ancestors do we have between the Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Norman invasions and the present? We have Holy Roman Emperors and some Italian nobility because of the Crusades. Hell, I'm intrigued on the fact that I have Armenian (Byzantine) blood from the Crusaders--but those proportions are just as low as the German ancestry. Just because we may have this descent, doesn't mean that there is any closer relationship with the Germans compared to the Armenians. We do indeed have an extremely lot of French blood, from all over France. My mother's family is from the Bristol Channel/Severn Valley, but each great grandmother on my maternal side is from Normandy. Now, I take that as being completely natural. What sort of common history does England and Germany, vs England and France have? Who cares what the Teutonic racists have to say about Catholics and Mediterranean people? We have King Arthur and they don't. We have King Canute the Great and they don't. We have the Lancastrian King Hal V--who conquered France for God and Saint George--with Bordeaux wine, from our Royal Dukes of Aquitaine. What do Germans have that is just like us? Our closest German relatives aren't really Teutonic, but French--the Burgundians. I object to the Whig history which tries to eradicate/minimise our actual history, in favour of inventing a culture for us based upon joining the Prussians and Hanseatic League. Bluff King Hal VIII despised Luther, as do I. Dieu et mon droit! Honi soit qui mal y pense! Lord Loxley 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lord Loxley, I'm very confused by what you are trying to do with the English People page. You are foregoing the months of serious and detailed debate that has been had on the discussion page and are simply now posting your own view on the related people section. St Paul, EPF, Alun and myself among others have all had serious conversations based in fact. As it stands now the related groups will not suit everyone but to limit it to the other British peoples is the most obvious and solid linkage that we can find. Your efforts are not appreciated and what you are doing is vandalising this page. You can contribute and you can discuss it on the talk page but you must find some consensus before you completely reorganise the talk page. It seems that your argument is based on folklore more than fact. Enzedbrit 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No; you are an Anglo-Celtic ethnocentric mystic (eg, Nazi and I know Godwin's Law doesn't apply here) and think that Bretons are allowed but Normans not. How fallacious, that you lot deny non-Celtic relations of the English. We have too much history to prove otherwise; the legislation against Celtic languages by English politics should confirm the most basic prejudice by the English against their subject entities. I say this without remorse as an Englishman, but it is more factual than a hypothetical "Merrie England" based upon Anglo-Celtic mythology. Ireland has something to do with the English people because of the Normans like Strongbow and Henry II, not the West Saxons like Alfred the Great. If you cannot see what is plainly world history, then you are deluded beyond repair! You are also ripping out your own heart by denying half of who you are; insulting the rest of us Englishmen who pride on our total roots and not some contrived and nonsensical "what-ifs" about history. Our history and relationships have been convoluted, but don't skew the facts to represent such a limited falsehood as it has been presented by you so far. Brittany hasn't been part of England since the Breton War of Succession during the Hundred Years' War, yet you still act as if there is an artificial division in political boundaries (but disallowing other peoples whose transnational culture applies to the English Realm). The Bretons chose France, not England. The Irish chose independence, but the British settlers said "no". You act as if your perceptions are the "end all, be all" sort of thing. They are held by a minority of those xeno/Europhobic arses who can't get laid. I'm proud of all that expansiveness England has historically had to offer (pre-1707), but you slice and dice who we are and misrepresent millions upon millions of Englishmen! How dare you force your narrow-mindedness upon the rest of us, who aren't bigoted like you?! Lord Loxley 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of what you're saying other than that you have a fascination with things 'Celtic' and how much you hate it. You completely misunderstand what 'Celtic' is and what the relationship is between the English and the related ethnic groups on the page. Things 'Celtic' have nothing to do with it. Celtic refers to a cultural period that flourished in Britain before the Romans and has endured with the Brythonic and Gaelic languages and incorrectly to refer to the culture of the non-English parts of Britain. The related peoples are there because of a genetic basis, a shared contemporary culture, language and identity and other groups have been omitted or better yet sacrificed, such as Dutch, Germans, French, to keep it simple and obvious. I'm sorry but I really do think that you are some sort of retard. Enzedbrit 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You think it's alright to keep Bretons, but not Normans. I think that qualifies you for a lunatic asylum, at least in respect to the English identity. Lord Loxley 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason why I have discussed the negative side of the Saxons, is that the present revisionist form of mind only looks back to the Battle of Hastings and not how the Saxons themselves had done exactly what the Normans did after them. They were both fascist regimes which did not take kindly to other polities exerting undue influence on their social and cultural control, but I love them both for making me the man I am today. We all know that the English Heartland is the Midlands and it is because of Offa being our first official king of the English, but those who look at it from an aristocratic perspective tend to focus on the successive West Saxon kings and their culture--along with the suppression of the Viking contributions as they were a prelude to the Normans. The difference between England's Saxons and Germany's Saxons is that the former were allies and partners of Carolingian France--the latter a completely estranged relationship. What the 1701 Act of Settlement Revisionists did, was erase the saintly memory of Edward the Confessor and replace it with Widukind's rather foreign social identity. This replaced England's traditional locus and filled the nonexistent void with a complete take-over of society. Our Saxons left the south of Jutland before the Dannevirke was built, which meant they were not yet German or part of the Holy Roman Empire and had actually been still Scandinavian (e.g. Danes and Normans). You want to attack somebody for taking England away from you? Hit the jugular in Hanover, not Rouen. Do you have familial relations with the Lombard Welfs (which English can claim this?), or are you a descendent of William the Bastard (which English cannot claim this?)? Please, choose the majoritarian side of things when discussing generalities such as culture and inheritance--to avoid upsetting those with rich customs and traditions based upon the totality of their forefathers. I'm very offended by the things you lot have been saying, but it's not new and so the suprise isn't so shocking. I'm composed. Lord Loxley 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)