Talk:English people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Note to editors: The page English people was created in English English (en-EN).
Please refer to:
English Flag
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling),
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling and
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for information on editing.
Archive
Archives
 
About archives • Edit this box

Contents


[edit] Perceived ethnic group

For a previous discussion on this issue see Talk:English people/Archive07#Not an ethnic group but a nation and Talk:English people/Archive08#Ethnic group or "nation"? and #English not an ethnic group

Today, the word can be used to refer to an 'English nation' comprising anyone who considers themselves English and are considered English by most other people.[citation needed] The word can also refer more exclusively to a perceived English ethnic group that claims descent from the groups who had settled England by the 11th century, such as the Brythons, Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings and Normans.[citation needed]

The first sentence, needs either rewriting or finding a source.

Why are the English a perceived ethnic group? They ARE an ethnic group. They DO trace their ethnicity to those groups mentioned above. Do people demand the same evidence of Scots, Irish or Welsh? Also, asking for a citation here is pretty stupid when you consider the paragraph written immediately above from the OED:

"With the incorporation of the Celtic and Scandinavian elements of the population into the ‘English’ people, the adj. came in the 11th c. to be applied to all natives of ‘England’, whatever their ancestry. But for a generation or two after the Norman Conquest, the descendants of the invaders, though born in England, continued to be regarded as ‘French’, so that the word English, as applied to persons, was for a time restricted to those whose ancestors were settled in England before the Conquest."[8]"

I'm removing the second 'citation' request. White43 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now included the full citation from the OED including the missing sentence. Also I have included the second definition which does says "Of or belonging to England or its inhabitants" that does not say that the inhabitants of England have to be born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
White43, it is not "stupid" to ask for a citation. The article states

The word can also refer more exclusively to a perceived English ethnic group that claims descent from the groups who had settled England by the 11th century, such as the Brythons, Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings and Normans."

But the OED definition does not mention the term "ethnic group" at all, it simply states that over time the the word "English" came historically to be associated with all natives whatever their ancestry. This is an historical account of how the meaning of the word changed during the middle ages from meaning only the "Angles" to including "Brythons", Danes and Normans, this change occurred as these people were assimilated over time into a unified identity group, but the quoted section does not claim that English ethnicity is different to English national identity, nor does it even use the term "English ethnic group". So it is perfectly reasonable to ask for a citation that this group is considered an "ethnic group", because as far as I can see what the OED is doing is describing the transition of the English into a nation from various different ethnic groups with different cultures and traditions. I think the whole section "The English as an ethnic group" is a synthesis, none if the cited material seems to actually specifically discuss the concept of an English ethnic group, for example the quote from Sarah Kane's play seems to be irrelevant, the protagonist is not differentiating between an English ethnic group and an English nation, I don't think he means "I'm am ethnically English but immigrants are part of the English nation", I think he means "I am really English because of my ancestry and immigrants are not really English because they do not have the correct ancestry". So his distinction is between being "really English" and being "not really English", it is not an "ethnic group vs nation" comparison, it is a racial comparison. The next paragraph starts by mentioning "English distinctiveness", but there is no evidence provided that this section is discussing an ethnic group, it discusses only the poor reporting of some Y chromosome studies and family name studies, but ethnic groups are not defined by Y chromosomes, nor are they defined by family name.

I suggest that what we need is a citation from a reliable source that specifically states that there is a difference between the "English ethnic group" and the "English nation" and that defines this difference. Personally I do not think that such a thing exists, the distinction between a nation and an ethnic group is not easily drawn, there are huge areas of overlap, both are mainly defined by identity, usually the distinctions are geography, scale and cohesiveness, nations tend to be associated with a specific geographical region, ethnic groups do not need to be, nations tend to have more members, which leads to why ethnic groups are more cohesive, ethnic groups are more culturally homogeneous because they are usually smaller. The English are derived from multiple cultural groups, are a large group and tend to be culturally heterogeneous. But whether the English are considered an ethnic group or a nation, or whether two distinct groups really do exist, we need proper sources to support any contention, as it is all we have is a synthesis that is not really supported by the sources used.

I would suggest that the distinction is not between "English ethnic identity" and "English national identity". I would suggest that it is between an exclusivist nationalist group of English people who do not believe that immigrants can be English because of their ancestry, and a more liberal group of inclusivists who believe that "Englishness" is not derived from ancestry, but from cultural norms, and that anyone can assimilate and become English, irrespective of their ancestry. In this sense it's about politics, but identities are always politically motivated to some degree. I also think that there will be English people with English ancestry who think "ancestry is important", and those who think "ancestry" is unimportant. One additional comment on ancestry, it's the perception of ancestry that's important, none of us actually knows our ancestry past a few generations, so we make assumptions about our ancestry that may be confounded by future evidence.[1] I think that tackling it from this point of view would provide many more sources. Effectively the debate is about who is and who isn't English, and not about whether the "nation" is different to the "ethnic group". Indeed the quote from Sarah Kane's play fits this model much better than it does the "ethnic group vs nation" model. Alun (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why Alun, must the English articles go to such great lengths to prove that an English people exist?

"Welsh people are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language." "Irish people are a Western European ethnic group who originated in Ireland, in north western Europe. " "The Scottish people are a nation and an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland."

The English people article spends three sections arguing a nation and an ethnic group. I don't see the articles on the other doing the same. Why must English people come under so much scrutiny? I think both sections should be merged and cutdown on this article. White43 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what you are getting at. This talk page is about the English people article, it is not about the Irish, Scottish or Welsh people articles. You don't seem to have even read my above post. But here's the difference between the Irish, Welsh and Scottish people articles and the English people articles: The English people articles attempts to draw a distinction between the "English ethnic group" and the "English nation", i.e. it attempts to say that these are categorically different things, but the problem is that it does not use any reliable sources to do this, none of the sources that are used make any such claim, as such the English people article does not have three sections discussing the concept of English ethnicity or English nationhood, it has three sections discussing "Englishness", but uses a synthesis to imply that ethnic English identity is different to national English identity. The Welsh, Irish and Scottish articles do not do this, nowhere do these articles claim that ethnic identity is different to national identity as the English article does. The Irish, Scottish and Welsh articles simply state that these identities can be regarded as national identities or as ethnic identities, they do not attempt to draw synthetic inferences from their sources. I thought I had made this point above. By the way, this has got nothing to do with the English people article "coming under so much scrutiny", all articles must be verified from reliable sources, this is how Wikipedia works, currently the English people makes some claims that are not supported. As I said above, this discussion should really be about how Englishness is seen by different groups, is it about ancestry, or can anyone born in England who feels English be English? It's not about ethnic vs national identity. As such I think your suggestion regarding merging the two sections is a good start. If we merge the two sections and have a general discussion about how people perceive English identity, then I think it will strengthen the article. I do think we should have an honest discussion about ancestry and English identity, it is clear that some people feel strongly that to be English one has to have English ancestry, I don't think there would be any problems finding reliable sources to support this point of view, likewise I think it would be easy to find sources to support the point of view that to be English one only needs to identify as belonging to the English group. Alun (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section. "English" will be listed as a subcategory of "White".(2007 Census Test; see p. 6) It seems that at least the civil service and their political masters consider English people can only be "white". It's strange that a right on politically correct Labour government would not give the option of the grandchildren of the people on the Windrush to define themselves as English ... but it is a reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the link to the test census form does not list English under the "White" category. Question 12 asks "What do you consider your national identity to be?" and there are seven possible responses including English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish and Northern Irish. Question 13 asks "What is your ethnic group?" Where one can answer "White English".[2] So clearly one can be English and not white on the proposed census form, though of course it may change. Alun (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have addressed the issue at all. The issue is whether "English ethnic identity" is different to "English national identity". What a non-expert civil servant decides to arbitrarily put on a form is irrelevant. We need a proper discussion about what Englishness means. Civil servants do not represent reliable sources for sociological or anthropological discussions. It is ludicrous to claim that a census form represents the best and most accurate way to identify and define "English identity", you appear to be saying that culture/history/society are irrelevant, it's what a civil servant says that defines identity. I'd say that is an insult to English people. I would suggest that a better place to start would be here, there are several books that appear to give an account of the more strident nationalistic conception of Englishness by a bloke called Tony Linsell. Furthermore this man has a website called "What England means to me" which seems to be in the same vein. It took me all of a few minutes to find a website that expressed this point of view. My main gripe though is the synthesis in the article that attempts to differentiate between ethnic and national identity, and neither of you have even addressed this. have either of you read a word of what I've written? Because as it is nothing either of you have said seems to be remotely relevant to my previous posts. Alun (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Alun did you read the previous discussions I listed at the top of this article? If so please turn off rant, and please read what I wrote just before your reply "I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section." This is a test census form and as such is very relevant to how the British Government views this subject. It clearly distinguishes between "12 What do you consider your national identity to be" and "13 What is your ethnic group?" with English only as a subcategory of White. I do accept that such a document is a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia. Personally I hope that they change the form for the next census, but unless they do WP:NPOV would predicate that a distinction can legitimately be made between English nationality and English ethnicity. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"[T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists." A quote from Max Weber. I think that is the best definition of what a perceived Ethnic group is. (Nebulousity (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC))


Philip, please remain civil, I did not come here for abuse, comment on content and not users. I came to improve the article, currently the article has a great deal of synthesis in the sections about English identity. You cite WP:NPOV while at the same time insisting that only a single point of view be kept, ie the point of view of the Office for National Statistics. Whereas this is certainly a citable point of view, it lacks reliability because there is no evidence that the people who have designed the census forms have an understanding of anthropology. If you want to cite it as the ONS way of calculating demographics, then that's fine, but the ONS is not concerned with academically rigorous concepts of identity politics, it is only concerned with demographics. Surely this article is about English identity, this can't be defined by the whims of a civil servant designing a census form, it is about how people subjectively perceive their identity.
Whereas your claim that the Office for National Statistics regards "English ethnicity" as applying only to "white" people seems on the surface supported by the census form, a more detailed inspection of the form shows that anyone can identify as ethnically English. Take a closer look at the form, any person can claim English as their ethnic background, whatever "ethnic group" they choose to identify with, all ethnic groups have a section "any other X background" with a write in. As such there is absolutely no reason why a person cannot choose English ethnicity as, "Black/Black British English", "Mixed English" etc. Furthermore on the sample form neither Welsh nor Scottish are given as sub-categories to "White", are you arguing that these groups are therefore not "ethnic groups" (and presumably not "white" either) but that "other British" and "English" are ethnic groups and "white"? It is clearly incorrect to claim that only "White" people can identify as ethnically English, the form does not support the claim in the article. Likewise there are numerous people who are not white in the UK who are clearly English and who can claim deep English ancestry, these are people with a "White" English parent and a non-White parent, they can claim deep English ancestry from their English parent, but you would claim that the census and ONS denies them the right to identify with their heritage, the form does not do this, the lack of a tick box is a trivial thing. But clearly "Black English" and a "White English" are not ethnonyms, English is an ethnonym. The difference between a Black English and a White English person is therefore "race" and not ethnicity. The UK state claims that it does not collect data on "race" but this is clearly untrue, they simply use the word "ethnic group" when they mean "race".
This is what I propose:
          • Merge the three sections "Definitions", "English as an ethnic group" and "English as a nation" and call it something like "English identity".
          • The OED definition would fit better into the "History" section, it is generally discussing the formation of the English nation from the many pre-existing ethnic groups.
          • Discuss concepts of English identity from the different points of view, both the point of view that anyone who identifies as English can be considered English and from the point of view that only those with an assumed deep English ancestry can be considered English. This should take the form of both discussions of immigration, race and national identity (after all there are plenty of people in England with, for example, one Scottish parent and one English parent). It should also include a discussion of people who have English ancestry who are not "white". This is the honest way to discuss this topic, not with tenuous synthesis and misinterpretation of sources. If we are discussing "race" then let's say it openly or not at all.
          • Not try to draw a distinction between the "English nation" and the "English ethnic group" unless we can find a reliable source that makes this distinction categorically and unambiguously.
The point is that if we change the article to the way I suggest, not only will it be more honest, it will be more rigorous and there will be many more citable sources to support the claims. If we want to claim that there is a point of view that to be English then one has to have English ancestry, then I'm sure we can find a source to cite, after all this point of view does not need to be anything other than the point of view of someone as long as we attribute it correctly, we don't need all the synthesis about "ethnicity" vs "nation"
Philip, I am trying to be constructive here, and am more than a little surprised by your aggressiveness. I don't think I have said anything particularly outrageous, only noted that currently there are real problems with the article from the point of view of the no original research policy in that there is clear synthesis going on. This is what the NOR policy states is synthesis

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

This is precisely what the current article does IMO and I can't see that attacking each other really helps, we just need to change the emphasis away from a debate about ethnicity and have one about identity that includes "all points of view". You are acting as if I have claied that we should not include any but my own point of view, but I am saying that we should include all points of view, just within the frame of reference of identity and not try to pretend that there are two different strains of English identity "ethnic group" and "nation". It is more accurate to say that there is English identity (which can be considered an ethnic identity or a national identity), but that it means different things to different people, then include the different points of view. Alun (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun have you read the archive sections I listed? Where am I "insisting that only a single point of view be kept"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be claiming that including the census definition is a question of "neutrality" and that only this needs to be taken into account when considering the issues. You state "I think that the explanation given in the first paragraph of the ethnic section would have to be explained away before one could delete the section." This statement appears to me to be saying that this single point of view is all that is required for the article to remain "neutral". If this is not your position then I have misunderstood, so please enlighten me. I disagree with your analysis regarding the first paragraph of the "ethnicity" section, it is based on a single point of view, that of the UK state, and therefore the neutrality issue is that it gives only a single point of view, which you state you want to keep for "neutrality" reasons. I don't think the census supports any distinction between an "ethnic group identity" and a "national identity", it is primarily a synthesis. I also have not suggested "deleting" any section, I have suggested merging two sections so that we have a single section that covers all aspects of English identity, rather than pretending that "national identity" and "ethnic identity" are separate issues without providing any reliable sources to support this contention. Can't you reply more constructively to my posts? I'm suggesting making constructive changes to the article, but you don't appear to want to be constructive. Alun (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I first step I would suggest going back to the revision on the 12 Septebmer which had been stable for some months before the edit by user:Cenwulf and account that would appear to be a socket puppet account. We can then decide what to do after that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea, the 12 September revision is far superior, it covers the complexity of interactions within the British Isles in a much more ballanced way and doesn't make anywhere near the audacious claims of the current version. Your suggestion has my full support. Alun (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, once again, An English nation/ethnicity seems to be confounded with severe scrutiny of 'does it exist?' In all fairness, comparing to the Wales, Scotland and Ireland articles - this sort of scrutiny does not exist - it is just accepted that these people exist. I'm uncomfortable with the division of 'NATION' and 'ETHNICITY'. Surely an English native people exist? Those which are a white people descending from the usual groups. The Scotland article has one section talking about an ethnic group - native, but that is all, Wales doesn't even have a section and neither does the Irish people article. Too much time is spent trying to justify that the English 'exist'! Of course they do. There's a native population, (like the Scots) and an English nation of non-natives. These large sections should be merged to briefly explain that there is a native group and a nation that includes later immigrants, this would fall much more in line with the other British Isles definitions. Such scrutiny feels like unnecessary stipulation of what it is to be English. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think maybe you have misunderstood what I was trying to say, possibly I didn't express myself very clearly. I'll try to be more explicit in what I am saying. The English people are an ethnic/national group, the article should say this clearly and unambiguously. The English are just as much a group with a common identity as the Welsh or the Scots. I did not mean to dispute this fact, if I gave the impression that I was disputing this, then I appologise. What I am am somewhat concerned with is the attempt to distinguish between ethnic and national identities as if these were proved to be different identities. I don't think the Welsh, Scottish or Irish people articles try to draw a clear distinction between ethnic and national identities (for example there are not sections in the Welsh people article entitled "The Welsh as an ethnic group" and "The Welsh as a nation"). Personally I don't think any clear cut distinction can ever be drawn between en ethnic group and a national group, but of course that's just my opinion and therefore not important to the article. All I was trying to ask for was there to be a reliable source that supports the splitting of national and ethnic identity groups. Regardless of that I think the older version of the article is much more ballanced. I think there has been some confusion about what I am asking for. I certainly do not mean to imply that there is no such thing as English national/ethnic identity and I would never make such a claim. Again I'm sorry if I was not clear enough, the last thing I want to do is offend anyone. All the best. Alun (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Alun, but that's precisely what I'm saying - this article feels far too ethnic-centric- you suggested way above to merge the sections. That's what I'm saying - we should follow the example of the Scottish People article. We need only one section that deals with a native English people and nation, not labouring the point and heavily trying to make make the distinction - I agree with you. 87.127.178.28 (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read the Scottish article for the first time in some months I think that the Scottish article is far too ethnocentric. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again. Why are the English a 'perceived' ethnic origin? White43 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with removal of the word "perceived". Alun (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
White43 What is the reliable source that states that an English ethnic group exists and what are the social science criteria for defining it that makes the English ethnic group different from the English nation? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get at here is that there is a native English population. a fair few million of them. There is also a nation that encompasses more than just the natives, this being the English nation. You know that and so do I. White43 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Also White43 what do you mean by "native English people and nation" What is the difference between "native English people" and non-native English people? or are you stating that only "native English people" constitute the English nation?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not clear about that either. Alun (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Native English - those descended from the first 'English'(Anglo-Saxons), Danes, Brythons and Normans. Simple really or is that not PC? Non-native, well - that should be obvious - any person who considers themselves to be English, not descended from those groups? And yes, I know most of us can't trace back beyond a few generations - but isn't that the case for most people on Planet Earth? Of course, defining English people by ethnicity alone is flawed - what about culture? White43 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, personally I'd use the word "indigenous", but generally it's not important. As I said above we probably can find reliable sources that state clearly that to be English one needs to have some reason to believe that one is descended from the peoples you list. As a pov it is notable and almost certainly citable. On the other hand it is also true that we can find citations for people who are of recent non-English and non-European origin (migrants and the children of migrants) who also identify as English. These are different points of view, and many people may have strong feelings about origins and ethnic/national identity, but according to Wikipedia policies we really should include all points of view, ie that to be English requires an absolute belief in ancient English ancestry and that to be English one only needs to identify as English oneself, irrespective of ancestral origin. I don't have any problem whatsoever in including both points of view. I agree that to claim that one has to have ancient English ancestry to be considered English is not considered "politically correct" (I personally am unashamedly a politically correct person), but this is an encyclopaedia and I don't think we should suppress a point of view just because it may be unpalatable to some people. A citable pov is a citable pov and we should include it. Obviously feelings can run strong when it comes to concepts of identity and I think we need to try hard to give as objective a discussion in the article as possible. The fact that these two points of view are mutually incompatible is not relevant, indeed it is the point of the neutrality policy to including both. Alun (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What is your source for claiming that "Native English" can only be those descended from those who migrated before or with the Normans, it seems very arbitrary and it is not supported by the current citations. For example are the descendants of early Huguenot settlers not native English? Of course there will be very few to no family trees over several hundred years that are solely descended from Huguenots. But equally thanks to immigration over the centuries particularly from the home countries there are next to no English people who's ancestors are only from inhabitants who lived in England in the 12th and 13th centuries (this way be dragons like the nonsense of the apartheid comb test). As you say "most of us can't trace back beyond a few generations" which is why I think "'perceived' ethnic origin" is more appropriate. As for your question on culture that surly is covered by the concept of "the English as a nation." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Phillip - I'm not suggesting that the groups I mentioned are all-inclusive. They would be the source of the English native peoples - of course, further groups will add to that that came a few hundred years afterward. Treading very lightly here - what I'm suggesting is that a native English person will generally tend to be white, like the first English people - with some sort of European - potentially Brython or Germanic background - and identify with being an English native as no knowledge exists beyond 100 years for most. We have only seen mass-immigration(of non-whites with differing ethnic backgrounds) in the last 100 years. As this article suggests, many of them profess to being British, rather than English as they themselves see English as a native or ethnic group rather than a nation. However we have seen that some of these peoples do profess to being English - Andrea Levy being a brilliant example. Most of this is academic, but as I've stated all along, I think the article goes into too much depth about trying to define an English native population and an English nation. The article seems to try far too hard to differentiate the two, when one section would do to talk about a native people and recent immigration. I don't see many other articles going to such great lengths. I think, that use of 'ethnic' is rather shallow and perhaps we should stick to terms like 'native' or 'indigineous'. Perhaps this article should just have a section of the 'English Nation' which refers to 'indigineous peoples' and those relatively new to the country which have no ethnic connection to them. What do you think? White43 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you are both right. An ethnic group is a group of people with a subjective belief in a common descent (or if you like the perception of a common descent). To be an ethnic group a group does not have to have an actual common descent, only the belief in a common descent. There's also the meaning of descent, in anthropology descent does not by necessity have have to have a biological reality, some ethnic groups claim a common descent from gods, or totems. So I think that the English certainly are an ethnic group/nation because they have a perceived common ancestry. Alun (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity can be derived from both objective and subjective aspects of descent. Alun, you know this after I showed you examples of this from the Cohen article. In addition, any subjective views of common descent are generally based on certain criteria that can be observed to members and non-members as a possible actual common decent. Any presumptions of it aren't just made out of the blue. They are based on diacritics like history, family, geneaology, physical appearance, behaviour, culture, langauge, etc. that are shared by the group members. As you know it is only in recent decades that we have been able to begin directly analyzing the blood relationships (genetics) themselves. There are various factors displaying some aspect of common descent. One more thing: ethnicity and nation are often distinct concepts and only are the exact same in cases of ethnic nationalism. Many modern European states (in their current entities such as Germany, Italy and Ireland, grew out of ethnonationalist ideologies, but have in recent times since also allowed it to include members not part of those respective indigenous ethnic groups. Epf (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • any subjective views of common descent are generally based on certain criteria that can be observed to members and non-members as a possible actual common decent
Y chromosome distribution from Capelli et al. shows that Y chromosomes display isolation by distance and not a sharp discontinuity between English and Welsh samples.
Y chromosome distribution from Capelli et al. shows that Y chromosomes display isolation by distance and not a sharp discontinuity between English and Welsh samples.
What? Clearly history, genealogy, behaviour, culture and language are all things that can be manipulated. History has always been used as a political tool, the recorded genealogies of ethnic groups are very suspect,[3] culture is hugely maleable (we have little culturally in common with even our recent ancestors), culture, behaviour and language are learned (and therefore when new groups are assimilated they become culturally/behaviourally/linguistically/ancestorally indistinguishable because that's what assimilation means). The assumption of a common descent is based on these criteria, but the reason it is assumed is because these criteria are so unreliable, none of these things are reliable markers of a shared ancestry, they are only markers for the presumption of a shared ancestry. As for physical appearance, anyone who claims that they can tell if a person is English as opposed to Scots or Welsh just by looking at them should be treated with a great deal of sceptisim. We all share a greater degree of ancestry with people who we live geographically close to (human genetic variation is marked by isolation by distance rather than discrete genetic groups that closely follow concepts of identity or linguistic markers), English people living just over the English/Welsh border will share more ancestry with Welsh people living immediately on the Welsh side of the border than they will with English people living say in East Anglia, that's not only a fact but also common sense, but this does not make them any less English, nor indeed does it make the Welsh people living close to England any less Welsh than people in the far west of Wales. I know you hold the "descent=genetic similarily=ethnic group" equation as a matter of "faith" and you have expressed this personal opinion time and again and have refused to accept evidence that does not support your personal beliefs regardless of their reliability (see below where you want to exclude perfectly good science because you claim it's too early for any conclusions to be drawn, even though those conclusions have already been drawn by perfectly reliable, citable sources, an example of you attempting to subvert Wikipedia by trying to censor sources that don't support your personal beliefs), but your claims are not supported by genetics and are generally quite irrelevant to this discussion. Alun (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some aspects of history, geneaology, culture and history can be or have been manipulated while some aspects can or have not. Who actually manipulates them in a way which would not be beneficial to themselves or would take away from their own identity anyway ? History has not always been used merely as a political tool and you have an ignorant perspective on its importance. Thousands of primary, historical sources and documents exist in libraries everywhere regarding numerous topics (I suggest you look into some), whether they be the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles or the Magna Carta. As for recorded genealogies, they are not just those which are kept (often quite accurately, and we traced our family surname to Norman times) through official and other primary documents (eg. birth and death certificates), but also through people's families themselves. Culture is not "hugely malleable" and no anthropologist would make such an overstatement. Yes, aspects of a culture clearly change through time but you are impying your own personal and ignorant viewpoint on all others. Most of us actually do share varying degrees of culture even with our more recent ancestors, some more than others. Many people have respect for and retain much of their traditions and culture passed down from their family or in their ethnic or cultural community. Language and culture are indeed learned, but from certain sources and where (and how) it is learned varies between different individuals and groups. Aspects of behaviour and personality are both learned (from various sources such as family, peers, community, etc.) and innate or genetic. When new groups assimilate, they do not become "indistinguishable" and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone seriously making that claim. To what extent new groups assimilate varies between groups and individuals as well as over time. Some groups assimilate more aspects than others and it is obviously not straightforward or universal, especially when multiculturalism is emphasized over assimilationism. The presumption (either from a subjective or objective standpoint) of a shared descent is based on those factors, and how reliable these factors are can vary. Genealogical records can be more accurate than other historical records; clearly basing a presunption of descent on cultural aspects alone is difficult; traditions and customs can only be proven so far back as those ancestors still living or through archaeological evidence and those material objects which are passed down by families over time; behavioural and personality differences are more accurate in displaying some sort of actual descent (especially familial) since they are, in part, genetic in origin (as Oppenhemier alludes to as the reason for him writing his book: his personally observed behavioural differences between those peoples of the Isles) and the same can be said about the most obvious aspect in displaying a common descent to most people, physical appearance. It is quite difficult to simply tell an English person from a 'Scots' or 'Welsh' since these groups are quite similar and in such close proximity to each other and overlap. One however can make a presumption based on the most common patterns in appearance in these populations. It would be less difficult however in determining someone's origin based on more distant regions within these groups, for example, between Orcadian Scots and Irish or a Welsh (many who have swarthier complexions) and Eastern English (where the highest blonde frequencies in England are found). Yes, genetic differences to vary over time and is most often marked by isolation by distance. I never diasgreed with such, but this is not the case in some situations. People of more distant geographic origins who move into a certain area will obviously very distinct from those around them for quite some time. The clinal gradations between some populations is more gradual than others. Ethnic enclaves and populations are common in various places, the most obvious today would be in cosmopolitan urban environments. In indigenous, rural regions, the steepness of gradations also varies. The Sami in Scandinavia are an example and have a much steeper genetic gradation from immediately neighbouring Norwegian and Swedish populations than say between the Welsh and English. I should also note that even in the study of Y-chromosome analysis that your image refers to, the researchers note that intense English and other settlement in East, especially south east Wales, which would make the population on each side of the Welsh/English border have even more genetic affinities. It is also worth noting that there are obvious differences between those in Northwest and Southwest Wales and other parts of the country. this is also quite interesting since these are also the regions where the Welsh langauge survives the strongest by far, especially compared to south-east Wales. You need to get past the false accusations that I support some "descent=genetic similarity=ethnic group" as I nowhere make this argument. I only support the fact that common descent (and various associated traits) play a large role in many ethnic identifications, and not simply the genetic aspects of it. In fact, I have often emphasized others factors (cultural, historical, behvaioural, etc.) associated with descent more than any genetic aspects. I have not refused any evidence that "does not support" my views since I can not think of any evidence which does not support the role of descent in ethnicities or ethnic populations that we've discussed. My views are clearly supported by genetics and anthropology as I have showed time and time again, but it is only you who keeps twisting and misunderstanding my points because you personally disagree with them and the evidence. I don't exclude any perfectly good science (further below regarding migrations) at all and agree with much of the findings. I only disagreed with your very erroneous claims that are not associated with the evidence whatsoever. No one is making ridiculous claims or assertions that the migrations were only myths and I was explaining this. I was also shedding some light on the evidence which you had twisted into your own ridiculous statements. I provided some viewpoitns from my own analysis as well as others, including that of Stephen Oppenhemier (which is where I gathered much of the point I made about the difficulty in deciphering the large continental impact in England to pre-Roman or sub-Roman continental and/or Germanic settlement). The problem remains your misinterpretation of my dicussions and arguments, as well as twisting them or other evidence to suit your viewpoints. Try to understand my points more carefully if it is unintentional, but if it isn't, well then please give this a rest. Epf (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, stick to the point, this essay has zero relevance to this discussion or to the article. You are not making any specific proposals or comments on the article. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, it is not a chatroom and it does not exist so you can spread your personal theories. Alun (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I don't understand your problem with the discussion. I made a response to your discussion above and this information does deal with this article. The origins and aspects of common descnet in the English ethnic group is found in the article and part of what is being discussed on this page. Epf (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We should also consider the use ethnic-group/ethnic-minority to describe people of English decent (however it is defined), in other countries such as the USA -- the country from which the term ethnic-minority originates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Alun, can we use that image in the article? It seems a good way to help explain the results of the 2003 study. (78.149.12.241 (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
Of course we can. I've released it to the public domain as I do with all my contributions. I'm actually in the process of making a map that includes all data points from the study, and this should give a better idea of the distribution of Y chromosomes in the British Isles. I'm also working on a map of the results of 2002 Weal et al. that drew different conclusions, so we can compare this to the Capelli et al. result. Alun (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good work. That'll be interesting to see. (78.149.4.107 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
Y chromosome distribution according to Weal et al.. Although they show a distinct difference between Y chromosome distributions between Wales and England, their sampling strategy has been criticised. For example Catherine Hills points out that the regions of England sampled are known to have been settled by Danes and all formed parts of the Danelaw. These regions are also archaeologically more distinct than other parts of England.
Y chromosome distribution according to Weal et al.. Although they show a distinct difference between Y chromosome distributions between Wales and England, their sampling strategy has been criticised. For example Catherine Hills points out that the regions of England sampled are known to have been settled by Danes and all formed parts of the Danelaw. These regions are also archaeologically more distinct than other parts of England.

There is no English Race. the "English" are the people living inside the constituent country of England. The "traditional" people living here are a mix of Celt, Anglo-saxon (mainly Angle), Romano and Viking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.199.73 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's no "English race" (indeed there's no such thing as "biological race"), and I agree that people who identify as English have various mixed ancestries (including ancestries from all continents), but I don't agree that anyone who lives in England in automatically English. I lived in England for five years but I didn't automatically stop being Welsh, and I didn't start to call myself English. Generally English people are people who identify themselves as English and who are identified as English by others, whatever their ancestry. A more specific way to identify English people might be to assert that they must have some belief in a shared common ancestry with other people living in what is now England, though this is a subjective belief because all human groups have a demonstrable close and recent shared ancestry.[4] Alun (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myths and reality of migrations

I think the current shape of the article is ok, but a little unreferenced. That older revision Philip mentioned is no better than the current one however, in terms of references. I just want to point out one more thing: it is far too early in the debate about the migration of both Celts and Anglo-Saxons to the British Isles to make start making audacious claims that they are only "myths". Clearly the culture of these two peoples have had the largest impact by far on the current indigenous peoples of the British Isles. Without Anglo-Saxon elements, there is no English culture and language. Without the Celtic elements, there is no distinct Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish cultures and languages. The uncanny resemblance between Anglo-Saxon language and sepcifically Frisian language is an obvious example that at the very least, some amount migrated from that region. No other language is as similar to even modern English language than Frisian. Frisia is also part of the historical regions from where the Anglo-Saxons supposedly migrated. Whether this association is in line with the Anglo-Saxon migration or pre-dates it (as Oppenheimer claims), that is still very much in debate. The specific affinity between English and Frisian to this day (not shared with any other Germanic languages) shows, to me at least, that clearly there was some sort of migration (of unknown size) that occurred from that region, in either pre- or Sub-Roman Britain. The idea that the Anglo-Saxons could have followed the route of older North Sea migrations, Germanic or otherwise, would not be a rare instance in ancient migratory patterns. Take for example the Mesolithic and Neolithic-seafaring migrations in the Mediterannean, from east to west - these routes were follwed by subsequent groups including the original bearers of the culture of the "Iberians" (possibly the Cardium culture), Bronze-Age migratons of Indo-European speakers, the Phoenicians and then the Ancient Greeks.

In terms of the early genetic studies showing the strong continental impact on especially eastern and central England. One interesting portion of the Y-chromosome census states: "When included in the PC analysis, the Frisians were more “Continental” than any of the British samples, although they were somewhat closer to the British ones than the North German/Denmark sample." So far, Y-chromosomes have been significantly studied and published for British populations, but this has been less the case (so far) regarding other sections of our DNA. No matter how much continental input is found, Oppenheimer's hypotheses conjure up a further problem in that it will be very difficult to decipher whether such input arrived (and how much) in pre- or sub-Roman Britain. Epf (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post seems to be some sort of essay, it doesn't appear to address any specific content currently in the article. I would point out that Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources, giving all points of view (with the exception of tiny minority points of view) while not allowing original research. The upshot of these policies is that any relevant point of view published by a reliable source can and should be included. You appear to be suggesting that we should break policy so as to exclude a point of view that you do not agree with, the three main policies are not open to negotiation, that is specifically mentioned on the policy pages "The principles upon which these policies (ie WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, V) are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Please don't recomend breaking policy because a source doesn't support your personal beliefs. Alun (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a miniature essay of sorts, but mainly my opinion in respose to some of your inaccurate claims above. Epf (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Alun, I'm not sure what Epf is trying to add to this article. This is discussion. White43 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that Epf at their userpage is discussing splitting this article into 'indigenous English' and 'English nation'. White43 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Hill quote

The quote in the 'Definitions' section currently reads:

The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons ... is still perceived as an important and interesting event because it is believed to have been a key factor in the identity of the present inhabitants of the British Isles, involving migration on such a scale as to permanently change the population of south-east Britain, and making the English a distinct and different people from the Celtic Irish, Welsh and Scots.....this is an example of a national origin myth... and shows why there are seldom simple answers to questions about origins.

The reason I removed the highlighted phrase is that the quote (as it stands) doesn't 'show' anything of the kind. I presume it does in the context of Hill's essay, but when extracted out of context, the quote simply describes the English origin myth without showing it to be simplistic. Either the quote needs reworking, or a different quote should be found. Or perhaps the highlighted phrase should simply be moved to the end of the "Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons" section?Cop 663 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hills is a reliable source and she is claiming that the origin myth does show that origins have no simple answers. We have evidence in the article that English people are descended from many different groups, so the quote supports claims made in the article. On the other hand I've been thinking that the quote might be better if it were included in the section about the English as an ethnic group because it's about a belief in common origins. I think the point is that this is the only quote I have seen that states clearly that the "Anglo-Saxons" are an important element in the formulation of English identity, but it is also important not to over egg the claim and to include her own disclaimer, so we need to state that actual origins are complex and are not as simplistic as "creation myths" would have us believe, which is what Hill is saying. Alun (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh sure, it's a useful quote in that regard, but it just looks odd when you read the page from top to bottom. I'm sure there must be alternatives; I'll try looking at Krishan Kumar's book, which is quite useful on this kind of thing. Cop 663 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity'

Some anonymous user has split the article into 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity'. Can someone explain how these are not the same thing, 'cos I'm baffled. Why, for example, is the section on immigration perceived to be about ethnicity but not identity? I think this is a spurious distinction; ethnicity is one part of English identity and can't easily be separated out. Am I wrong? Cop 663 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason I did that was because the section as it was, was a mesh of information on history and on ethnicity without being informative enough on either one. I think it's wrong to put it under history because of that imo. There is actually a main article dealing with English history (which I linked to in this article), so there was no need for an article on English history anyway (again imo). I believe that 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of English identity' are two seperate subjects. The ethnic groups is a general overview of how each group is defined. The history of English identity is about how Englishness as a identity came into being through a historical perspective, but if you think the difference is too subtle to warrant it's own heading, then maybe it could be added as a sub-heading under Ethnic groups? (78.149.12.81 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
Wouldn't it make more sense the other way round, with the ethnic groups as subheadings of 'identity'? Ethnicity is one part of what constitutes identity, not vice versa. Cop 663 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make more sense, but it looks like it's already been changed (Nebulousity (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
It's been changed to sections on 'English ethnic groups' and 'history and politics of the English'. Hmm. Still weird: for example, why does the 'history' section include the Danelaw but not the Norman Conquest, while the 'ethnic groups' section describes the Norman Conquest but not the Vikings? I still think it made more sense as a single section. Cop 663 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I decided to restore the general structure of the article before the changes by 78.149.12.81. As I've noted above, dividing it into two sections has resulted in some lapses of logic, and if we did fully write two separate sections entitled 'English ethnic groups' and 'History of the English' there would be too much repitition, since the concepts cannot be easily separated. I have retitled the whole section "History of English identity", which I think helps deal with some of the issues that 78.149.12.81 was concerned about. The aim is for each subsection to be about how the idea of 'Englishness' has evolved and developed over history, rather than simply being another 'history of England', as 78.149.12.81 feared. Obviously it still needs a lot of work, but this revision is, I think, more logical. Cop 663 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's better now as it is. (Nebulousity (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] English nationality

"and the waning of a shared British national identity as the British Empire fades into history." Should we add to this the centrifugal force of the constituent nations of Britain joining the EU as independent sovereign states?[5] It was after all primarily the economic imperative that drove Scotland into bed with England and within the EU that imperative no longer has the force it once had. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the discovery of oil in the North Sea has significantly influenced Scottish nationalism, it's one of Salmond's main arguments for the economic viability of Scotland. On the other hand could it be a bit too political and a bit off topic? I'm ambivalent, could be worth a mention. Alun (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also should some mention be made of Britain and "North Britain" as was the fashion after the Union in the early 18th century and is reflected in the name of "British Army" and British Army regiments like the The Royal North British Dragoons. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of British identity? Alun (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nice paper about Anglo-Saxon "apartheid"

Here's a nice paper giving an alternative view to the "apartheid like social structure" paper. Is it necessary to assume an apartheid like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England? Alun (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs a subscription to view though. (78.149.5.209 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC))
Shame, it's a nice paper. They dispute that there is a need to claim an apartheid like social system. For example they claim that the Law codes of Ine can be thought of differently, like this, being "Anglo-Saxon" or "British" was an identity, and people could change their identity very easily, they could change the language they spoke and their style of dress. "Anglo-Saxon" culture was already a hybrid culture of British and continental German cultures. By imposing unbalanced laws on the "Britons" he was encouraging them to identify as "Anglo-Saxons" rather than as Britons, the paper claims it was a tactic to encourage a homogeneous society and culture within the kingdom. There are some other excellent observations in the paper, that Germanic tribes had been moving into Great Britain from well before the Roman invasion, that many of the tribes in eastern Gaul were already cultural hybrids of Celtic and Germanic peoples before the Romans came. That we shouldn't get too wrapped up in Victorian romantic ideas of Germanism. I'll have to read it again to give more detail, I can't get access at home, but I can see it at work. Alun (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
PS, you can read the abstract here. Alun (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resurgent English nationalism

I think the bit about London in the first paragraph needs to go as no one sees London as a regional assembly like those in Wales, NI, or Scotland, they see it as a replacement for the Greater London Council. As Ken Livingstone acknowledged, when he began his victory speech with the words: "As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted 14 years ago".

The English nationalist movement has had mixed results. When given a referendum on devolution in Northern England the electorate overwhelmingly rejected it.

The attempt to split England up into regions was a strategy developed by the Labour party to try to work around the West Lothian question. They hoped by introduction regions in England they could say to the English see you have the same devolved powers as Scotland, and to the Scots see you have a devolved government. Given the Conservative majority in England, the last thing the Labour party wants is an English devolved parliament because they would be in a minority in what would be a very powerful institution (if not by law then by democratic mandate). So if you are an English nationalist the last thing you should have done in the "referendum on devolution in Northern England" was to vote for it.

So I think the paragraph "The English nationalist movement..." needs to be re-written. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A good points. Any suggestions about how to rewrite it? Alun (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)