Skip to main content
Topic: Harry and Megan (Read 17048 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #210
My version is based on historical, archaeological, genetic and linguistic evidence.  Your version is based on a racist opinion; Anglo-Saxonism was a racial belief system developed by British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics in the 19th century. It advanced the argument that the civilization of English-speaking nations was superior to that of any other nations because of racial traits and characteristics inherited from the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain.  We now know that the Angles and Saxons played a relatively minor role; culturally, linguistically and genetically.

Rather than relying on Wikipedia, there are some excellent, very readable books based on the the most up to date research.  Alice Roberts is a great writer and I recommend her Buried: an alternative history of the first millennium in Britain, Ancestors: a prehistory of Britain in seven burials, and The Celts.  Robin Fleming's Britain after the Romans is another good read.  Then there is Blood of the Isles by Bryan Sykes that deals with the DNA evidence.  Finally, there's Stephen Pollington's An introduction to the Old English language and its literature.

My patrilineal ancestors arrived in Britain 6,500 years ago and settled in Cumbria where they stayed until four generations ago.  My matrilineal ancestors left the Spanish refuge at the end of the last ice age and made their way up the Atlantic coastline as the ice sheets melted.  They moved into Britain before the formation of the English Channel.  I have some DNA from Germanic Europe (Saxons) but I am mainly a mix of Britons, Celts, Gaels and Norse.  I am not Anglo-Saxon, primarily because it is a meaningless term culturally and biologically, but also because my DNA reveals my true ancestry.  The term was used to claim racial superiority in the 19th century and, by your own admission, is used by you to identify a class of people who you claim behaved in a particular way, and that's racist.



So just to clarify, I'm racist for having suffered the WASP culture which was by your own comments was a 19th century superiority complex that actually persists today not to all people, but only against indigenous and other minority groups but doesn't apply to anyone of European ancestry?

Sorry trying to work out what point your making because arguing against anglo saxonism, and then stating its been around as a superiority complex since the 19th century doesn't discredit it really.  Whatever the history of the brittish peoples DNA might be, when they became the dominant thalassocracy of the world British imperialism reigned, and exploited others.

Call me racist if you like, but I dont think that applies to me:

characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised and I don't treat others as anything based on anything but their own behaviour.  Thing is, when I left my last job, I did so having been one of the Greek boys from IT.  Name used interchangeably with my colleagues, because you know who really cares which one of them we are speaking to, people asking me how the kids are (i dont have any, that was my team leader) and just generally feeling invisible.

Anyway, I'm one of the privleged ones I guess.  At least I'm not from Africa or Asia or indigenous because I'm not its ok to treat me as inferior and I should have no complaints?



"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #211
I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised....

This is not specific to you and your comments, but this highlights an issue i raised earlier.

Racism is racism. Majority/minority or not.....it shouldn't matter. I think there should be a distinction between racism (individuals) and systemic racism (perpetuated by government/society/majority).

I mentioned previously, that according to that definition, i would need to check my location and do a head count (to establish majority/minority status) to work out if something i said/heard was racist. That is frankly absurd. If someone says something against white/black/purple people here, or in africa, or in europe, or on venus, the comments are the same, the meaning behind them is the same, the location and people surrounding the comments are 100% completely irrelevant.
If i say something on tape, and its played in 1 country....its not racist. If that same tape is played in another country, it is suddenly racist? Ludicrous. It can be more (or less) offensive, sure, but its still racist (or not).

The sooner we understand that, and practice that, the better chance we have of ending it.

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #212
So just to clarify, I'm racist for having suffered the WASP culture which was by your own comments was a 19th century superiority complex that actually persists today not to all people, but only against indigenous and other minority groups but doesn't apply to anyone of European ancestry?

Sorry trying to work out what point your making because arguing against anglo saxonism, and then stating its been around as a superiority complex since the 19th century doesn't discredit it really.  Whatever the history of the brittish peoples DNA might be, when they became the dominant thalassocracy of the world British imperialism reigned, and exploited others.

Call me racist if you like, but I dont think that applies to me:

characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I dont think the people im referring to are a minority, or marginalised and I don't treat others as anything based on anything but their own behaviour.  Thing is, when I left my last job, I did so having been one of the Greek boys from IT.  Name used interchangeably with my colleagues, because you know who really cares which one of them we are speaking to, people asking me how the kids are (i dont have any, that was my team leader) and just generally feeling invisible.

Anyway, I'm one of the privleged ones I guess.  At least I'm not from Africa or Asia or indigenous because I'm not its ok to treat me as inferior and I should have no complaints?

There you go again!

WASP culture!  What exactly is that?

As I have explained previously, the term WASP was used to describe an American ethnoreligious group who are the white, upper-class, Protestant historical elite, originally of British descent but broadened to include people of northwestern European descent.  There isn't and has never been an equivalent ethnoreligious elite group in Australia.  I have no doubt that some folk of  northwestern European descent gave you a hard time but I bet that they weren't all upper class or Protestant. 

Just to reiterate, the term Anglo-Saxon is used in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, annals compiled by monks and clerics to document the achievements of the ruling elite of southeastern England.  It is believed that the original manuscript was compiled during the reign of Alfred the Great but the story commences in 60BCE, the date they believed Caesar's invasion of Britain occurred.  Of course, there were no Angles and no Saxons in Britain when Caesar invaded.  The Angles and the Saxons and the Norse and Normans, Bretons and Flemish all came much later and, rather than replacing the original Britons or Celts, simply supplanted the ruling elites.  Anglo-Saxon is not a culture or a race but was a literary tool used to reinforce a ruling elite.

In the 19th century, some British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics developed a racial belief system based on the mistaken idea that there was an Anglo-Saxon people.  These white, upper class elites were tagged as WASPs in America and your continued use of the term to describe Australians of northwestern European descent is wrong and racist, as is your categorisation of people who you claim weren't welcoming as Anglo-Saxon.

Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised."  Being a minority group or marginalised is not essential.  Your continued reference to Australians of northwestern European descent as Anglo-Saxons who made you feel unwelcome is racist.  Please stop!

A former colleague went for a holiday in Greece, partly to catch up with family and partly to have a good time.  George is blonde with blue eyes and speaks English with the faintest of Greek accents.  He went into a shop on one of the Greek islands and the owner ignored him.  When another customer came in, the owner went to serve him and the following conversation occurred, in Greek:

Second customer: "What about him? (pointing to George)
Owner: "The fecking foreigner can wait!"
George: "Who are you calling a fecking foreigner?"
Owner: "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were Greek."

George didn't expect to be subjected to racism in his ancestral homeland and was horrified to think that "foreigners" could be treated so badly.

I had lunch with one of my oldest friends recently and she was telling me about her first experiences after emigrating to Australia from Egypt.  Like many Egyptian Greeks, her family fled Nasser's persecution and arrived in Australia with next to nothing.  She said that she and her family experienced nothing but kindness and help from Australians.  She went on to carve out a very successful career and her daughter is a famous singer-songwriter.  I wonder why the "Anglo-Saxons" treated them differently  :-\   
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #213
Reading all this debate, it can't help but confirm for me the root of this problem lies in the modern social media plasticity in the definition of the terms.

I see it in this most recent debate, where much of the debate hinges around "racism" being defined in the eye of the beholder, and I see it in many social media discussions where some famous media figure has hijacked a common term, for example turning "truth" into "their truth"!

Now we see a general "broadening of language" under a banner of wokism, where broadening means distortion, the term literal seems to have left the building.

Ultimately, with so many common terms using definitions based on personal perspectives, the final result has to be anarchy and chaos.

After all the chaos is caused and the many frauds exposed we rarely see a return to stability, normality is not resumed.

I see it as a problem of inertia and momentum of issues, people are too hesitant to call the issues out early, they don't want to rock the boat, they fear social media backlash, they do not want to be "cancelled", and there are nefarious types that know this and leverage it. The wise hoping that whatever the issue is will die away quietly stay quiet, and when it doesn't it gain momentum and then it can't be stopped, often all gathered on a fraud or distortion.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #214
There you go again!

WASP culture!  What exactly is that?

As I have explained previously, the term WASP was used to describe an American ethnoreligious group who are the white, upper-class, Protestant historical elite, originally of British descent but broadened to include people of northwestern European descent.  There isn't and has never been an equivalent ethnoreligious elite group in Australia.  I have no doubt that some folk of  northwestern European descent gave you a hard time but I bet that they weren't all upper class or Protestant. 

Just to reiterate, the term Anglo-Saxon is used in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, annals compiled by monks and clerics to document the achievements of the ruling elite of southeastern England.  It is believed that the original manuscript was compiled during the reign of Alfred the Great but the story commences in 60BCE, the date they believed Caesar's invasion of Britain occurred.  Of course, there were no Angles and no Saxons in Britain when Caesar invaded.  The Angles and the Saxons and the Norse and Normans, Bretons and Flemish all came much later and, rather than replacing the original Britons or Celts, simply supplanted the ruling elites.  Anglo-Saxon is not a culture or a race but was a literary tool used to reinforce a ruling elite.

In the 19th century, some British and American intellectuals, politicians, and academics developed a racial belief system based on the mistaken idea that there was an Anglo-Saxon people.  These white, upper class elites were tagged as WASPs in America and your continued use of the term to describe Australians of northwestern European descent is wrong and racist, as is your categorisation of people who you claim weren't welcoming as Anglo-Saxon.

Racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised."  Being a minority group or marginalised is not essential.  Your continued reference to Australians of northwestern European descent as Anglo-Saxons who made you feel unwelcome is racist.  Please stop!

A former colleague went for a holiday in Greece, partly to catch up with family and partly to have a good time.  George is blonde with blue eyes and speaks English with the faintest of Greek accents.  He went into a shop on one of the Greek islands and the owner ignored him.  When another customer came in, the owner went to serve him and the following conversation occurred, in Greek:

Second customer: "What about him? (pointing to George)
Owner: "The fecking foreigner can wait!"
George: "Who are you calling a fecking foreigner?"
Owner: "I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were Greek."

George didn't expect to be subjected to racism in his ancestral homeland and was horrified to think that "foreigners" could be treated so badly.

I had lunch with one of my oldest friends recently and she was telling me about her first experiences after emigrating to Australia from Egypt.  Like many Egyptian Greeks, her family fled Nasser's persecution and arrived in Australia with next to nothing.  She said that she and her family experienced nothing but kindness and help from Australians.  She went on to carve out a very successful career and her daughter is a famous singer-songwriter.  I wonder why the "Anglo-Saxons" treated them differently  :-\   
.

Interesting. 

The attitude of the British Royal Elites do behave this way, correct or incorrect?

They would rarely have married outside of what they consider the royal elites through history and largely did so to further their own political and imperial alliances in order to protect their peoples and forge alliances to grow their sphere of influence.

Regarding your discussion, I can't help but think that somehow you are taking exception to a considered truth of history that is generally well known, but now seems to be being revised.  That's fine, if I am incorrect ill put my hand up and state that.  I am big enough to admit if I am wrong, or wronging someone and its clear i've struck a nerve.  Whilst I work out what's going on, I am going to link some commentary here that I think may offer a perspective of why perhaps the exception shouldn't be with what I have written on this forum but perhaps with how attitudes shift differently for different people at differing times.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/how-anglo-is-australia

Speech by HE Paul Madden, British High Commissioner, to the NSW Community Relations Commission, Parramatta, 18 April 2013.





 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Harry and Megan

Reply #215
For moi, racism (any of the 'isms' really) is simply what David (DJC) highlighted in his post. Often the simplest and most straight forward explanation is the best or truest.

As discussed previously, racism does seem to have its roots in fear of difference (ending up being passed from generation to generation), and that really does lead to all manner of assumptions and judgements (often unfair). Seems to me that the isms really are a kind of dangerous laziness. Fear and ignorance walk hand in hand and sadly result in many folks (often minorities) bearing the brunt of hurtful, painful and even dangerous/violent actions. We're living through considerable change and still have a long way to go. And 'change' is another fear for many.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17