How British are You?

Badly Drunk Boy · 14-04-2012 10:00am

KeithAFC, did Oliver Cromwell mainly do good deeds?

mackg · 14-04-2012 10:05am

Temptamperu wrote: »

Great Comedy and some good music.

Agree about the comedy but some good music??

If there is one thing those lads do well it's music, fucking unreal for it.

Cavehill Red · 14-04-2012 10:06am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Has anyone denied that though? I don't think so.

You've stated twice that Irish people should like Cromwell. What is it about someone you accept to be a genocidal looper of the highest order is appealing in your opinion to Irish people?

KeithAFC · 14-04-2012 10:09am

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You've stated twice that Irish people should like Cromwell. What is it about someone you accept to be a genocidal looper of the highest order is appealing in your opinion to Irish people?

He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

Do you disagree?

Cavehill Red · 14-04-2012 10:14am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do you disagree?

Do I disagree? Of course I do. Do you believe that the French should like Hitler were it not for that unfortunate episode involving the Jews?

Fratton Fred · 14-04-2012 10:16am

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You've stated twice that Irish people should like Cromwell. What is it about someone you accept to be a genocidal looper of the highest order is appealing in your opinion to Irish people?

Cromwell was a blood thirsty republican who didn't care how many civilians were killed as long as he got what he wanted. In some parts of Ireland that is considered worthy of being hero worship.

losthorizon · 14-04-2012 10:19am

If you go round England you'll soon see the huge damage he did there as well. He was a true believer in what he had started and people like that are dangerous - no concessions.

Actually spend some time in Britain and you will see that its very different to here. They speak the same language but its a totally different country with a totally different culture. Nothing wrong with them, the vast majority are very friendly but it is alien.

TBH I prefer France - the average French person has the right attitude about life, a great lifesyle and they like Ireland ( except for Sarkozy and Parisians).

Cavehill Red · 14-04-2012 10:24am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Cromwell was a blood thirsty republican who didn't care how many civilians were killed as long as he got what he wanted. In some parts of Ireland that is considered worthy of being hero worship.

Not only is that a spectacularly anachronistic example of whataboutery, but there should also be a special Irish version of Godwin's Law for people who inappropriately drag the Provos into discussions where they're irrelevant.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 10:28am

chughes wrote: »

Just getting scientific for a moment, I'd imagine DNA taken from many Irish people would show similarities to DNA taken from white English people. Irish people and English people have been "intermingling" for many centuries.

Indeed so. The idea that we're "celts" and they're "saxons" is not borne out by the genetics. There's pretty much eff all Celtic DNA in our blood(or theirs). Saxon markers are present in pretty tiny amounts in the extreme east of England, but that's it. They've more markers for "Roman" than Saxon. The Celtic/Saxon invasion was more cultural than anything. They had a lot more physical saxons on the ground mind you, though for some reason their genes diluted pretty soon after. So yea it seems the average English, Scot, Welsh and Irish are more related to each other than to anyone else and the more north you go in England the more that's the case.

As for how "British" I am? Not very at all. Outside of the language dialect that's about it.

For a start when we say British we mean English. The British label is a bit of flim flam in lots of ways. I'd feel closer to Welsh or Scots than English. Very generally and this is obviously not all English folks.... I can't abide football or any of that shíte that seems to hype up many of them. I find their jingoism at times both odd and dangerous to their own people. When you see those lines of coffins driving through sleepy English villages, kids just out of their teens silenced in coffins draped in the union jack "for Queen and country" I think WTF and feel really bad for them. Their class system thankfully dying off is/was utterly daft. The English were shíts to the peasant class in Ireland, but they were hardly any better to their own. Used them as indentured slaves, exported same in their thousands to shore up the colonies and used them as bullet stoppers in many many wars. While convincing them this was mostly a good thing. I also find their attachment to monarchy very odd. What's weird (for me) is how a lot of their amazing history and culture has now the air of museum about it. They polish and preserve the glories of yesterday. Damn near every village you drive through has three or four antiques shops.

Actually I find the English a very sentimental people. More sentimental than the Irish though stereotypes would suggest the reverse. I find the Scots least sentimental of all and the Welsh similar to us. I have to say I like the English I've met as a general rule. I found them easier going than say the Scots.

joolsveer · 14-04-2012 10:37am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oliver Cromwell is misunderstood in history. He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

You just have to look at it from a historical point of view and understand these things happened back then. Cromwell actually give orders for his soldiers to not harm the country folk.

He sent a lot of Irish to the West Indies as slaves too. So did Charles I and II.

Grayson · 14-04-2012 10:45am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Cromwell <Insert name of Irish Republician> was a blood thirsty republican who didn't care how many civilians were killed as long as he got what he wanted. In some parts of Ireland that is considered worthy of being hero worship.

Yep

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 10:48am

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Come off it, Wibbs. There are limits to revisionism.

Nope it's not revisionism. revisionism would be to suggest he was a thoroughly good egg and misunderstood. You'll note I said he was a cúnt and a Puritan nutjob? However describing him as Ireland's Hitler is daft, historically inaccurate and the simplistic goodies/baddies thinking of the mob. The generals he left behind were significantly worse. He prosecuted battles very close to the "rules of war" of his time. Unlike others he never sacked a town or killed civilians of a town that had negotiated a surrender. The exception being Wexford, but that was a bloody mess to start with. Yes he was a fiercely and hypocritically ambitious god bothering nutjob. Yes he was the figurehead for the worst that was to befall this island after he left. Yes he is a good boogieman, but the history is a little more subtle than that.

Do I disagree? Of course I do. Do you believe that the French should like Hitler were it not for that unfortunate episode involving the Jews?

The Jews would be the least of the French objections. They happily handed them over in their thousands. And French resistance? Yea well they have one thing in common with us there. You talk to the average French man and they had a "grandfather in the resistance". In much the same way as every Dubliner appears to have had a "Grandfather in the GPO". I'm sure their grandfathers bought stamps in the place either side of Easter '16, but if the numbers of these deluded muppets were true the queue to get into O'Connell street would have stretched to Finglas.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 10:51am

joolsveer wrote: »

He sent a lot of Irish to the West Indies as slaves too.

No. He didn't. Again historically incorrect. That happened after he left and didn't stop as you point out with the restoration of the English Crown. They were at pains to overturn other Cromwellian plans, but seemed to have no issue with that. Mostly because it suited their plans and didn't have the smell of Cromwell's name attached.

Doc Ruby · 14-04-2012 10:54am

Yes Keith, if Cromwell hadn't slaughtered lots of Irish people, most Irish people wouldn't have a big problem with him. We wouldn't like or approve of him, but it wouldn't resonate, obviously. France and most European countries had their its fair share of butchers too, but we never hear about them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed so. The idea that we're "celts" and they're "saxons" is not borne out by the genetics. There's pretty much eff all Celtic DNA in our blood(or theirs).

There's something quite peculiar about Irish DNA though.

Men with Gaelic surnames coming from the west of Ireland are descendants of the oldest inhabitants of Europe. In a recent study, scientists at Trinity College, Dublin, created a new genetic map of the people of Ireland. By comparing this map to European genetic maps they have shown that the Irish are one of the last remnants of the pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers who were living throughout Europe over 10,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture. The Irish really ARE different.

What's in a name?

Surnames in Ireland have been passed from father to son for almost 1,000 years. The surname system in Ireland is thought to exist as one of the oldest applications of the hereditary surname system in the world. In Ireland this system was not introduced but rather it is thought that toponymics (names derived from place names) and nicknames were adopted. For example, the name O'Callaghan comes from the Irish O'Ceallachain, a diminutive of ceallach, which was taken to mean 'frequenter of churches.'

Traditionally, newly married women have taken up residence in the homeland of their husband, meaning that family names have remained in the area of the particular clans or septs for generations. Surnames, except in the infrequent case of non-paternity, are therefore an indication of family history, and on a larger scale, of population history.

In developing the new genetic map, the scientists studied the DNA of 221 men from all over the country. The DNA was separated into groups of people with names coming from the same area. For example, names that originated in Ulster, such as Gallagher and O'Reilly, were grouped together. Names from Munster (e.g. Hogan, Meagher, Ryan); Leinster (e.g. Conlan, Phelan, Rafter); and Connaught (e.g. Conway, Flynn, McHugh, Ruane) were all grouped accordingly and were considered to be Gaelic Irish. Also names of English (e.g. Harrison, Hill, Jacob, Moore) Scottish (e.g. Hamilton, Johnston, Knox), Norman (e.g. Barry, Bryan, MacNicholas) and Norse (e.g. Doyle) descent were grouped separately. These were considered to be non-Gaelic Irish. By separating the DNA as such, they could study the genes that were present in a particular region of Ireland over 1,000 years ago, when the surname system was adopted.

The science behind it

In Issue 88 of INSIDE IRELAND, the article "Who are we? - It's in the Genes" outlined the basic science behind genetic studies of populations. Each cell in our body contains a signature of our past. Modern technology allows us to look directly at the amount of variation in the genes in these cells. Variation accumulates over time through a random process of mutation. Mutations occur at a constant rate. Therefore, the more different two people are genetically, the longer they have been separated.

Using modern technologies to look at the differences between genes in the different peoples of Ireland, the scientists in Trinity College studied the genes on the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is the male-specific sex chromosome that is passed from father to son in the same way that surnames are passed from father to son.

A distinct genetic pattern

By performing a number of genetic tests the scientists were able to identify a particular genetic pattern in the Y chromosome of the Irish. An ancient genetic marker, known as haplogroup 1, was found in most Irish men. Scientists think that most of the population of Western Europe carried this gene over 10,000 years ago. Over time however, through the movement and mixing of peoples, this gene was diluted. Now it is found in relatively fewer people throughout Europe.

The greatest movement and migration of peoples in Europe has been the movement of farmers from the south-east of the continent after the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. The farmers moved with their new technologies north-west into Europe, probably displacing the local hunter-gatherer populations that were living there at the time. In this way the haplogroup 1 genes in Europe were diluted, the farmers introducing new and different genes.

Men with Gaelic names are more ancient

This resulted in the formation of a gradient of haplogroup 1 genes throughout the continent, the lowest frequency of these ancient genes being found in Turkey, and the highest frequency in Ireland, with intermediate frequencies in continental populations. In Ireland 78.1% of all men have the haplogroup 1 gene.

In Ireland men with Gaelic names have higher frequencies of this ancient marker than men with non-Gaelic names. For example, men in Ireland with surnames of English origin have 62% haplogroup 1 genes; men with Scottish names have 52.9% and men with Norman and Norse names have 83%. In Leinster, 73.3% of men with Gaelic surnames have this gene, in Munster, 94.6% and in Ulster 81.1%.

Connaught men are the most Irish of the Irish

The most striking finding was that in Connaught, the westernmost point of Europe, almost all men (98.3%) carry this particular gene. This means that the people of Connaught have been relatively isolated, genetically, from the movements of people that shaped the genetic makeup of the rest of the continent. By comparison, in the east of the country there has been a lot more mixing of genes coming from foreign sources.

The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago.

The Early Bronze Age

By looking at the amount of variation (the number of mutations that have accumulated over time) in the haplogroup 1 genes of these men it was possible for the scientists to estimate a date for the origin of the bulk of these genes in the country. They estimated that most of the genetic variation in Ireland has accumulated over the past 4,200 years following a rapid growth of the population at this time. This is the time of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland.

The Early Bronze Age in Ireland, among other things, saw the appearance of megalithic tombs. Newgrange in Co. Meath is the best known example. The scale and magnanimity of these structures suggest that the creators belonged to a large, highly socially evolved society.

The scientists have shown most of the genes present in Ireland today came from the people who were living at the time of Newgrange. These people were the descendants of the ancient hunter-gatherers of Europe.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "most Irish of the Irish" guff since that's a cultural reference but the long and the short of it is that the direct descendants of the people who moved here first after the ice withdrew, long before Saxons, Gaels, Brits, Franks or Celts, are still here to a great extent, unique in most of Europe and probably the world.

Still, I await the next carefully timed breathless St Patricks day "study" from Cambridge or Oxford which clearly shows that the Irish actually emigrated here from the US in the 17th century. :rolleyes:

kfallon · 14-04-2012 10:57am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oliver Cromwell is misunderstood in history. He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

You just have to look at it from a historical point of view and understand these things happened back then. Cromwell actually give orders for his soldiers to not harm the country folk.

:rolleyes:

Oliver Cromwell was a cunt and I hope he is burning in hell as we speak, hopefully to be joined shortly by Thatcher. Prob the most despicable person in History imo.

Liked in Ireland

I tell you something Keith, I'd say you could start an argument in an empty room. Now run along, the Queen's corgis need to be walked and don't forget to bring your bowler hat and sash

Oh and for the sake of the OP's question, I'm as British as Ann Doyle's gee :pac:

Cavehill Red · 14-04-2012 10:59am

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope it's not revisionism. revisionism would be to suggest he was a thoroughly good egg and misunderstood.

He's been described as misunderstood on this thread twice already. Sort of hard to misunderstand genocide, but there you go. Apparently it's misunderstood.

Wibbs wrote: »

You'll note I said he was a cúnt and a Puritan nutjob?

Insufficient condemnation. Milton was a **** and a puritan nutter. And he wrote tedious poems. But he wasn't a genocidal maniac in two countries.

Wibbs wrote: »

However describing him as Ireland's Hitler is daft, historically inaccurate and the simplistic goodies/baddies thinking of the mob.

I didn't Godwin the thread. But both were genocidists and the comparison extends as far as noting that such facts really ought to remain the primary context and issue of discussion when considering either individual.

Wibbs wrote: »

The generals he left behind were significantly worse.

Who left them behind? Under whose orders did they operate? Who had given them the example for their behaviour?

Wibbs wrote: »

He prosecuted battles very close to the "rules of war" of his time. Unlike others he never sacked a town or killed civilians of a town that had negotiated a surrender.

Not true.

Wibbs wrote: »

The exception being Wexford, but that was a bloody mess to start with.

THERE it is. See? He did sack towns that had negotiated surrenders and kill civilians. But apparently that's okay for some reason?

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes he was a fiercely and hypocritically ambitious god bothering nutjob. Yes he was the figurehead for the worst that was to befall this island after he left. Yes he is a good boogieman, but the history is a little more subtle than that.

As with the Provo Godwin's law, there ought to be a negative equivalent of damning with faint praise. Sort of praising with faint damnation perhaps. You're committing that in this thread. He was a genocidist on two countries. There is no mitigation.

Wibbs wrote: »

The Jews would be the least of the French objections. They happily handed them over in their thousands. And French resistance? Yea well they have one thing in common with us there. You talk to the average French man and they had a "grandfather in the resistance". In much the same way as every Dubliner appears to have had a "Grandfather in the GPO". I'm sure their grandfathers bought stamps in the place either side of Easter '16, but if the numbers of these deluded muppets were true the queue to get into O'Connell street would have stretched to Finglas.

You missed the point, which was that according to Keith we would all love Cromwell were it not for one little boo-boo he made in Drogheda. (Never mind the many other atrocities.) Which I pointed out was akin to the French (feel free to insert Dutch, Polish, Danes, Bulgars whatever you're having yourself) loving Hitler had he not killed the Jews. An obviously unlikely event no matter which occupied nation you choose, because the Nazi horrors extended further and deeper than the Jews, and that what Hitler did to the Jews, akin to Cromwell at Drogheda, is not something to be forgotten.

domkk · 14-04-2012 11:07am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oliver Cromwell is misunderstood in history. He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

You just have to look at it from a historical point of view and understand these things happened back then. Cromwell actually give orders for his soldiers to not harm the country folk.

Oliver Cromwell...saviour of the culchie!

Happy Monday · 14-04-2012 11:12am

galwayrush wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Look up the history. Oliver Cromwell tried to over throw the Monarchy and many people should like him for that in Ireland. The problem comes with what he did during Drogheda. That is the main problem.

But if he hadn't done that, he would probably be admired in some quarters.

The 11 year siege of Galway wasn't very popular here at the time............

Dont you mean 11 months?

The tribes of Galway would have been strongly pro Royalist at that time.

Cromwell came here for 4 reasons.

1 Destroy his royalist enemies.
2 Destroy the power of the Catholic Church.
3 Seek revenge for the slaughter of Protestant settlers in the North in 1641.
4 Give lands to the nobles who had fought for him.

A nasty bit of work by any standard.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 11:14am

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "most Irish of the Irish" guff since that's a cultural reference but the long and the short of it is that the direct descendants of the people who moved here first after the ice withdrew, long before Saxons, Gaels, Brits, Franks or Celts, are still here to a great extent, unique in most of Europe and probably the world.

From what I've read on this, that area of study has been updated more recently and the haplogroup version isn't as old as we used to think. It's not the same one as the older Basque* as is often claimed. It's a later variant. We've also not got much Spanish in us either. An idea that held some currency until very recently and still does outside genetics circles(blood of the armada and all that). Yes we've had less of a mixture going on. Our isolated position was a large part of that. The peoples of Britain have more, because of more invasions and migrations(inc us), but they don't have that much more. EG only a tiny percentage of them have any Saxon genes and those genes are the minority.

Genes don't begin to tell the whole story, though it's the science de jour. Very fashionable. England did have an actual historical Saxon invasion and settlement. Many thousands of the buggers, yet if one was to rely on the genetics you'd conclude maybe a few sailors showed up and got busy with a few locals. It's quite interesting how fast new blood gets bred out.

As for unique in the world or Europe? Maybe the latter, but there are other populations more isolated. The Basques, the Sami people to name but two and they would be significantly more "ancient" than us. Worldwide? Not even close. The Andaman islanders, the San, Native Australians and shedloads more.

*Funny enough I do have the Basque variant so someone was shagging Spaniards in my past

Old Tom · 14-04-2012 11:15am

senorwipesalot wrote: »

What do you love about our neighbours?
Do you like them alot more than the kuntz next door.

Ya?

I had nothing against the Brits until I went a number of times to the Canaries.

Them fat, tattooed ******* really must think they own the world and that they are god's gift to humanity :pac:

While walking on a footpath I had to escape a number of times, otherwise the moving pile of fat would crush me like a tank. Fat parents, fat kids and a terrible, demanding attitude. And that bloody "posh" accent, drama.

That's how I see it.

Corvo · 14-04-2012 11:17am

Another thread ruined by the history buffs.

Happy Monday · 14-04-2012 11:19am

Griffin1988 wrote: »

Another thread ruined by the history buffs.

Another fine mess you got me into!

Born to Die · 14-04-2012 11:26am

The FA cup semi-final and the Aintree Grand National on today. I love Britain today. Today Britain is great.

Doc Ruby · 14-04-2012 11:36am

Wibbs wrote: »

From what I've read on this, that area of study has been updated more recently and the haplogroup version isn't as old as we used to think.

Not really. Here's a bit more information on the genetics and some maps of compared distribution with megalithic sites. There's a very clear correlation in both timeframes. Incidentally the last article I quoted named the haplogroup wrongly, its R1b not I, thats the Scandinavian grouping.

The picture that builds up is of a people who moved here first after the ice age and established a powerful civilisation across western Europe. It may not have been connected as an empire, but it was definetely connected. A cultural empire would probably be the most reasonable hypothesis since obviously the continent wasn't devoid of people either.

Over time then with the drift of populations these "original" people were pushed further and further west, which is again a pattern that has been repeated many times throughout history.

Its not only fascinating, it does make good sense when you think about it.

Now some people get very excited about these facts and try to misrepresent or actively hide them for nationalistic or political reasons, such as the St Paddys day scholars, whether that's a demented dedication to former administrations or terror of any sentiment that proves a difference between Ireland and the rest of Europe, but the reality does not support them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Genes don't begin to tell the whole story, though it's the science de jour. Very fashionable. England did have an actual historical Saxon invasion and settlement. Many thousands of the buggers, yet if one was to rely on the genetics you'd conclude maybe a few sailors showed up and got busy with a few locals. It's quite interesting how fast new blood gets bred out.

Language tells its own story as well, for example the majority of English words directly correspond to modern French words. But neither can be taken in isolation naturally.

Wibbs wrote: »

*Funny enough I do have the Basque variant so someone was shagging Spaniards in my past

I've no doubt theres a little bit of Ireland in most countries too, we're well known for it!

giles lynchwood · 14-04-2012 11:36am

smcgiff wrote: »

Your ma's called London?

I L O L.I applaud you sir.

deman · 14-04-2012 11:41am

kfallon wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

I'm as British as Ann Doyle's gee :pac:

I'm pretty sure it has has a bit of British in it.

AngryBollix · 14-04-2012 11:44am

I married a brit.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 11:49am

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not true.

Yes true. Except for Wexford.

THERE it is. See? He did sack towns that had negotiated surrenders and kill civilians. But apparently that's okay for some reason?

Read up on the siege of Wexford and get back to me. It's not so black and white. Thumbnail sketch: The negotiation went back and forth. The commander of the town asked for stuff that now way was cromwell going to agree to, but back and forth they went. While this was going on and just as a letter agreeing to terms was sent, some of Cromwells troops got through the defences and started killing and looting. Cromwell didn't order the attack. Neither did he stop it of course. Wexford was a bloody mess that got well out of hand. He lost the plot in Drogheda and went on a god fueled blood rampage. However in every single case of a town that negotiated terms(remarkably favourable in some cases) Cromwell did not kill civilians, or even surrendered combatants.

Abi · 14-04-2012 11:56am

Bizarre thread.

I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 11:59am

Old Tom wrote: »

I had nothing against the Brits until I went a number of times to the Canaries.

Them fat, tattooed ******* really must think they own the world and that they are god's gift to humanity :pac:

While walking on a footpath I had to escape a number of times, otherwise the moving pile of fat would crush me like a tank. Fat parents, fat kids and a terrible, demanding attitude. And that bloody "posh" accent, drama.

Fat tattooed English people are a far cry from posh in accent. Jeremy Kyle fodder alright.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not really. Here's a bit more information on the genetics and some maps of compared distribution with megalithic sites. There's a very clear correlation in both timeframes. Incidentally the last article I quoted named the haplogroup wrongly, its R1b not I, thats the Scandinavian grouping.

Oh I'm with you on the broader notion of the megalithic connections DR, but I meant the R1b isn't as homogenous as was thought. "Ours" is a later variant compared to the Basques say.

I've no doubt theres a little bit of Ireland in most countries too, we're well known for it!

I've also got Neandertal DNA so fcuk know where that came from.

Funny I'm most proud so to speak of that. 60-100,000 year old shenanigans between people who weren't quite the same species of human.

Born to Die · 14-04-2012 11:59am

Abi wrote: »

Bizarre thread.

I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Bizarre used to be a good thing in AH.

FTGFOP · 14-04-2012 11:59am

I like my toast done on one side... then the other. So fifty per cent British, well English. Hmm. Bloody broken toaster.

0.5(English) * (Britishness of Englishness factor) = ?

Spellcheck wants to change 'Britishness' to 'Brutishness', lol.

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 12:00pm

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

I lost my cherry to one.

Born to Die · 14-04-2012 12:02pm

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

My daughter is one

cena · 14-04-2012 12:02pm

I'm 1/4 english

Cavehill Red · 14-04-2012 12:02pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes true. Except for Wexford.

Which makes it not true.

44leto · 14-04-2012 12:03pm

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

No wonder you're an AngryBollix

Abi · 14-04-2012 12:04pm

Born to Die wrote: »

Abi wrote: »

Bizarre thread.

I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Bizarre used to be a good thing in AH.

I dunno. Bizarre/funny maybe, but this...

Madam · 14-04-2012 12:06pm

losthorizon wrote: »

TBH I prefer France - the average French person has the right attitude about life, a great lifesyle and they like Ireland ( except for Sarkozy and Parisians).

Why would you assume Parisians don't like Irish people?

Born to Die · 14-04-2012 12:08pm

Abi wrote: »

I dunno. Bizarre/funny maybe, but this...

Just too much derailment of threads with "serious debate".
"Intellectual googling" and the ctrl c doesn't lead to entertaining banter.:(

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 12:12pm

Born to Die wrote: »

"Intellectual googling"

Naw I could bore you to fcukin tears long before Google was invented.

Born to Die · 14-04-2012 12:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Naw I could bore you to fcukin tears long before Google was invented.

I know

Doc Ruby · 14-04-2012 12:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm with you on the broader notion of the megalithic connections DR, but I meant the R1b isn't as homogenous as was thought. "Ours" is a later variant compared to the Basques say.

Actually no, its the exact same variant, as it turns out, dating back to just before the last glacial maximum. That's why all the fuss about Irish people originating in Basque country a while back.

The reverse is probably the case, all things considered. Naturally of course Anglosphere scholars would sooner bite their own arm off than say anything originated in Ireland, so heavily politicised are such studies, but really, the writing is on the megalith.

Plazaman · 14-04-2012 12:20pm

Spiffing bunch of chaps.....

*Adjusts monocle

Winty · 14-04-2012 12:31pm

44leto wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Would you vote to re join the Union?

No I think it is advantageous for Ireland to remain independent as in economically, influence, keeping our own Atlantic resources oil included, also been small keeps us out of stupid wars which Britain always end up in.

I am happy to be out of the Union, but I am also happy with the recent state of Anglo/Irish relations. I actually enjoyed the Royal visit last year as did most Irish.

I love this term independent

The Irish foreign policy is produced in London as we don't want to build a physical border with northern Ireland we must copy the immigration.

The Irish economic policy is produced in Germany as we got rid of our money to join the Euro

So what part of Ireland is independent

Il Trap · 14-04-2012 12:32pm

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I love their TV and music.

In general, I HATE their TV with a few exceptions. Alot of their music is great.

Fratton Fred · 14-04-2012 12:32pm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "most Irish of the Irish" guff since that's a cultural reference but the long and the short of it is that the direct descendants of the people who moved here first after the ice withdrew, long before Saxons, Gaels, Brits, Franks or Celts, are still here to a great extent, unique in most of Europe and probably the world.

So basically the Irish are inbred, is that what you are saying?

Doc Ruby · 14-04-2012 12:40pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So basically the Irish are inbred, is that what you are saying?

See now Fred's a good example of why these things get politicised. Not having enough confidence in his own identity, he instead draws most of his self image from a union jack, like those people with the union jack on their underwear, teacups, and pillowcases. Pointing out that Ireland is genetically and culturally distinct from England is a direct assault on his borrowed self confidence, even if no reference derogatory or otherwise is made to England, so he needs to respond with abuse and accusations of vile practices.

Its quite sad really.

Sunnyisland · 14-04-2012 12:48pm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

See now Fred's a good example of why these things get politicised. Not having enough confidence in his own identity, he instead draws most of his self image from a union jack, like those people with the union jack on their underwear, teacups, and pillowcases. Pointing out that Ireland is genetically and culturally distinct from England is a direct assault on his borrowed self confidence, even if no reference derogatory or otherwise is made to England, so he needs to respond with abuse and accusations of vile practices.

Its quite sad really.

Thats the English for ya

:pac:

Wibbs · 14-04-2012 12:51pm

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Actually no, its the exact same variant, as it turns out, dating back to just before the last glacial maximum. That's why all the fuss about Irish people originating in Basque country a while back.

OK this is off the top of my head here so geneticists look away...

Haplogroups have clades, subdivisions within them. Basque is one and Irish is another. The studies you link to are largely out of date and this stuff moves fast. The more recent study of these clades, discovery of L21 and a rejig of the genetic "clock" shows that the Irish population likely spread from Britain/ Northern France. A more northerly route than the Iberian myth claims. Plus northern forms of R1b are much younger than the southern Basque forms. So no they're not the same variant DR and the myth perpetrated by programmes like that "Blood of the Irish" is... well, a myth. I know this most of all, because they're able to tell my R1b is Basque/northern Spain, not Irish. If they were the exact same variant they couldn't.

EDIT we're more related to the English and they to us than we are related to Basques or the southern R1b haplogroups.

How British are You?

Comments