Issy, another PORKY AWARD, yep is that your 500th for the year. You failed to back up your Gandhi claims with facts! Believe me, I argued most strongly in your defence before 'THE COMMITTEE' but to no avail. Despite my best efforts, and your abysmal track record in truth telling, 'THE COMMITTEE' had no alternative but to award you yet another PORKY First Class.

Keep up the good work old chap! BTW; How ya going with that book?

Hi Aidan,

When I mentioned historic Yorkshire I was referring to
York City. I would love to walk through the medieval
history in York's old city and step back in time to
the 14th century with its narrow cobbled streets and
historic houses.

Hi Paul,

I went to an all Girls' High School where the English
Mistress had a tremendous influence on me and instilled
a love of Shakespeare and English Literature. English
Lit. was another of my majors at univ.

I understand what you're saying about Imperial Britain.
And I appreciate your sentiments.

Paul,
You have, as always, my commiserations.

As I said at the outset, the thread is based on an anonymous comment from someone whose historic understanding is clearly defective. To suggest that the English were subject to any more conquests than many other nations is just to display a complete lack of history.

Turkey, for example has been conquered and reconquered more times than I care to count. Egypt too. And many more too.

But the real problem is the notion that conquest equals cultural change. Take for example, Norman conquests of Britain. The Normans (really North Men since they were Vikings via France) did conquer Britain. But it wasn't like a total displacement of the population or the culture. They merely replaced the aristocracy. Most of the population would not have had much, if anything to do with their lord before 1066 and they continued to have little to nothing to do with their lord post 1066. They continued to live just as they'd lived before and after the conquest. Celtic culture continued unimpaired.

But over the generation, the conquerors did have interactions with their subjects and were ultimately 'conquered' by them. It is said that after Rome conquered Athens, Athens then conquered Rome. That is, Athenian thinking came to dominate in Rome. The same thing happened to the Normans.

While the Norman's bought a new language it merely added to the old language rather than replace it. England and we are still utterly dependent on the original words that applied pre-1066. This piece from Johnson touches on this area of scholarship (watch the whole thing but I've teed it up at the relevant section..... http://youtu.be/FLak2IzIv7U?t=255).

England is no more (or less) an amalgam of cultures that have crossed it's path than any other culture on the planet. The whole thread is based on a misunderstanding of that.

The modern-day British are not a single race but
as stated earlier a hotchpotch of ethnic groups
that have settled within those shores down the
centuries.

The following link explains why mixed race people must
be able to decide their own identity:

http://www.theconversation.com/biracial-britain-why-mixed-race-people-must-be-able-to-decide-their-ownidentity-154771

Explained earlier - A mongrel race?

The word mongrel in recent years has often been applied to
the English by commentators and not a few English people
themselves.

http://www.wearetheenglish.com/a-mongrel-race-54-w.asp

Here's another reminder:

Studies reveal that 30% of white British DNA has Germanic
ancestry. The analysis shows that the Anglo-Saxons were
the only conquering force around 400 - 500 AD to
substantially alter the country's genetic make up with
most white British people now owing almost 30% of their
DNA to the ancestors of modern day Germans.

The first people to be called English were the Anglo-Saxons.
A group of closely related Germanic tribes that began
migrating to Eastern and Southern Great Britain from
Southern Denmark and Northern Germany in the 5th century AD,
after the Romans had withdrawn from Britaian.