dagest

I really have very little idea what you're talking about. Who are you talking about - the Bristish or English? What classes are you referring to? Pro immigration nonsense? Enery ethnic group on this island is an immigrant/emigrant of some sort. There are no original inhabitants of this island. The very essence of Englishness, as an ethnic group, is taken from approx 1400 years ago when Angles, Saxons and Jutes came to these islands. They are many English people's ancestors. You don't think the English existed before 1066?

Who are "they"? There was and is an English race, but this has changed fundamentally through the course of history. The modern Enlgish modern race is ethnically mixed and quite different from that of the "Dark Ages". Claiming the English race was born in 1066 is patently absurd. The English aristocracy was crushed in 1066 and almost completely replaced by a French/Norman aristocracy whom imported their own cultural values and carved up the country between themselves. In fact, you could argue that the old English aristocracy were in a sense the essence of Englishness. And if you accept this, than the English virtually disappeared. It was only with the loss of French territory (such as Gascony and Aquitaine) over the next couple of hundred of years that the "English" aristocracy re-invented itself as the English aristocracy. It is worth remembering that the quintissential English hero Richard the Lionheart considered himslef completely French and had all his body parts buried throughout France.

I'm not so sure I have my basic facts wrong. For example, if you follow this link to the the etymological dictionary, it states quite clearly that "*Racist Term Removed" was, " Also applied by Eng. settlers to dark-skinned native peoples in India, Australia, Polynesia." Here's the link: Etymology Dictionary Also, if you read Lawrence James's History of the British Raj, you will find plenty of evidence for the context in which it was used. Before you accuse someone of getting their facts wrong, it's pretty important that you're sure of the facts yourself, other wise you could end up looking a little foolish. Regarding, "our flags", I think you'll find people will read whatever symbolism they like into flags. If soemone sees the Union Jack as a racist symbol, they see it as a racist symbol. If soemone sees it as a symbol of benevolent colonisation then that's what they see. The point is, is that it is subjective.

I remember him playing in midfield and he can't have been that bad as he was virtually an ever-present in that promotion winning season.

I couldn't agree more. I like the Orwell quote and I think there's a great deal of truth in it.

You're quite right I haven't answered the question myself. And my quick answer is that I don't really know who the English are either. I guess the concept of the nation or nationalism can be split up into various contituent groups. For example, the concept of Englishness can reflect geography, language, culture, history, ethnicity. There are probably others, but I'm too tired to give it that much fault. Anyway, if we take these one at a time, we can determine how important or pertinent they are. Geopraphy: I guess we kind of established that geography really doesn't amount to much. It doesn't make much sense to say that whoever lives on this lump of land at any given time are the English. Language: Historians commonly consider the Anglo-Saxon invaders to be the our (England's) direct ancestors. But it is worth mentioning, that these invaders/settlers consisted of three different tribal groups known as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. As you probably know they were intially invited to this isand by the Romano-British. Anyway, they came here and "settled" with the Romano-British for a few 100 years. They all scrapped around for a while with their little kingdoms until Alfred the Great largely created an English kingdom. Then Vikings came along killed a monks and nuns and eventually settled in large numbers in northern England. Up to this point we can probably say that a recognised English language was in use throughout the land, though Scandinavian (Viking dialects) was also used a great deal and is still reflected in some northern place names. So, the Normans invaded a bit later as you know and imported their own cultural values. They used their own names like Robert, William, Henry etc. All these names were French and were soon copied by the "English". You don't tend to get many Ethelberts around these days do you? As you can guess the language is slightly more mixed up now. This is the case e ver since as well. Modern English is a big mix of original English, French, Latin and a few others. Lastly, if you consider that many people on our little planet are fluent in English now it doesn't really amount to a special feature does it? History: I'd be here all day. My synopsis above will do. Culture: The Normans largely replaced the Anglo-Saxon aristocarcy culture by using their own language and artistic tastes as illustrated by Gothic architecture. English culture ever since is really an assimilation of European in the first instance and later world culture. We only have a couple of aspects of distinct Anglo-Saxon culture left in a few place names and a few weekdays like Tuesday and Wednesday. Ethnicity: As is illustrated above there can be very few people who can trace their genetic line back to the Anglo-Saxons. We really are a genetic mix of Romano-British, Celts, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, French, Dutch, Indians and plenty of others. I don't know if you agree, but from this it's hard to know what constitutes a special feature of being English. However, for illustrative purposes I'll tell you about the Ukraine. As you may know the Ukraine is only a new nation. In creating a national identity, the Ukranians have had to read their own history books and work out their own history. In a sense it is a prejudicial exercise with people picking what bits they want to believe and what they think counts. The point is that the concept of a nation (which is often individual) is often an artificial construction or if you like a human invention. The questions for me are, who really benefits from the conception of a nation? And is it worth investing so much emotional energy in a concept that is often built on such shallow foundations? Umm, sorry for the lecture, but you asked me what I thought.

How odd. You think that a Franco/Norman aristocracy created the English nation. I always thought it was the Franco/Normans whom invaded England and imposed Franco/Norman culture at the expense of English culture. So, you don't think the English existed before the Norman Invasion? But you said the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were English constituents as well. I think this brings me back to my original point, which I shall repeat for you: "I don't even think you know who the English are."

You've almost completely lost me now. Regarding English defeats, I'd suggest the Norman invasion was a bit of hiding wouldn't you?

Bizarre. So, you think that every ethnic group who has lived on this island over the last 2000 years can be defined as English? If the Norwegians invaded next week and expelled us all, would they suddenly become the English within a generation? And how do you explain your earlier comment about us never "suffering a military defeat"?

Your list has left me dumbfounded. David Rennie? Steve McClaren? Chris Honor? Soren Andersen? Vimos Sebok? I'm especially surprised by Rennie. Him and Andy May formed one of the best midfields I've ever seen down Ashton Gate - though I'd like to point out I was too young to remember the mythical days of top-flight football.

I'm surprised Liam Robinson keeps coming up. He was never a bad player. He might not have set the division alight and scored few goals, but I can think of many more worse players than him.

Naturally, but it does mean it is tarnished by association. The swastika is a similar example. The swastika is over 2000 years old and had associated meanings long before the Nazis came along, but can it be rehabiltiated now? Would you go outside displaying it? You could also argue that a flag as a representative symbol could have a racist symbolism. For example if you were a native Indian under British rule and were consitently referred to as a "*Racist Term Removed", as they were then you probably be quite entitled to view the Union Jack as a symbol of racism. I agree with the Rev essentially, as long as you allow the "Right" to monpolise its use then it will de fatco be recognised as a symbol or racial intolerance. Hilltop Red, I don't even think you know who the English are. Cider Hider, I think you are quite profoundly confused, with your hotchpotch of Left and Right rhetoric.

Couldn't agree with you more on this one Simply. Dinning was never a bad player. Unfortunately Tinman preferred the type of midfielder who runs around a lot without having any ability whatsoever. I believe Orr illustrates this perfectly.