Comments by "Steve Watson" (@stevewatson6839) on "The New Culture Forum" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. This is an argument that has been to and fro for fifty or sixty years. Lets look at Western Europe: you can map you can map where the Roman Empire was and where there was just elite replacement from the countries that have Romance languages. Britain is very different; here we have a takeover that was more than just by elites. We have wholesale language change in the eastern parts in a couple of centuries. Look at 1066: another elite replacement and the core of the language survives. We don't call ourselves Normans (Except where that is a personal name) The Normans themselves were a minority Viking elite; Normandy therefore doesn't speak a Scandinavian dialect; it speaks French. We see from Domesday book no records for the North West. Why is that? In the South West Cornish was still spoken as far east as the Somerset levels into the Tudor period. The heartland of Cymru where is spoken is in the northwest; unconquered 'til Longshanks. The Principality wasn't annexed to England until the Tudors. "Wales" and "Welsh" derive from the Old English for foreign; foreigner. The usage was an ethnic slur; the equivalent of Wogland and Wog. The triumph of the English and the English Settlement is that total that HARDLY ANYONE knows that today. The settlement wasn't an overnight affair and there was another Germanic settlement, this time of Scandis, in the Ninth and Tenth centuries. But for the Bastard, we'd probaly be Scandinavian. In the North East, Norwegians could still hold conversations with Geordies about farming in WWII! English and Norewgian were STILL somewhat mutualy intelligable after a thousand years! The truly disgusting molrop(sp.?) remains a "delicacy" too. How do we know there was a Battle of Badon? We can tell from the archaeology that the Settlement was stopped dead and in some places reversed for about fifty years in the sixth century. I haven't looked at the mitochondrial DNA v cellular DNA but that should tell the tale of whether there was a Settlement better. There should be signal that the native blokes weren't getting a leg-over as nearly as much after the English bagsayed all the women! All conquests are savage. Even if the tale is somewhat different from the reality; we aren't responsible either for our forefathers evil or their good. This is very crude and broad and I'm leaving out evidence and argument our English ancestors were settled here BEFORE the Romans in the South East and that the Belgic signal there is that of an elite takeover in the centuries prior to Julius Caesar's failed invasions. If you "think" differently - COME 'N' 'AVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOUR 'ARD ENOUGH! UT! UT! UT!
    1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1