Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 169

Thread: Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, genetically the same.

  1. #1
    Ex-Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a house. For now at least.
    Posts
    1,756
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, genetically the same.

    An extraordinary book called "A Book Around the Irish Sea History without Nations", by David Brett tells of the history of the Irish Sea over thousands of years.

    The Irish Sea has been treated more like a lake, interlocking the people who used the sea for trading, to settle, create families and build alliances.

    The most extraordinary claim by David Brett is that although wars were fought to control the Irish Sea, this was never seen as different nations fighting for their "national interests". It was only in the 19th century that ideas of nationalism, and of different peoples who were unique and separate took place!

    Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people. In England the Saxons were seen as invaders from across the North Sea who pushed out the original Britons. In fact, DNA technigques show that the genetic make-up of the vast majority of people in the British Isles is the same, and it is identical to that found in the remains of people who settled here 8,000 years ago.

    Amazing book. What now for all those engaged in nationalist politics and war-fare. Its all a big mistake??

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,843
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Maybe it's time for the English to admit the folly of independence and submit to our rule?

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,433
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Sounds like a narrative to support a political objective of British-Irish unity (under British domination, naturally).

    The most extraordinary claim by David Brett is that although wars were fought to control the Irish Sea, this was never seen as different nations fighting for their "national interests". It was only in the 19th century that ideas of nationalism, and of different peoples who were unique and separate took place!
    The 12thC English, the 16th and 17th Century English/British regarded the Irish as little more than vermin and treated them as such - has the author even heard of the plantations - does he think they had no effect on Irish nationalist thinking (ie Brits out, we would be better off ruling our own affairs)? Ultra revisionist nonsense, even Shakespeare wrote....

    "This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
    This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
    This other Eden, demi-paradise,
    This fortress built by Nature for herself
    Against infection and the hand of war,
    This happy breed of men, this little world,
    This precious stone set in the silver sea
    Which serves it in the office of a wall
    Or as a moat defensive to a house,
    Against the envy of less happier lands,—
    This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

    Red Hugh O'Donnell's men sang the song Roisin Dubh which had lyrics picturing Ireland as a woman and they were fighting for her honour - national identity and a consciousness about differences between tribes, nations etc is as old as the hills, this idea of national identity being a 19thC invention is one of the least intelligent revisionist larks to ever emerge - surprising there are so many who still use it.

    Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people. In England the Saxons were seen as invaders from across the North Sea who pushed out the original Britons.
    Except the Saxon invasion is a historical truth, the firbolg/Tuatha etc is mythological - is he even aware of this? He should read what the legends say of these Irish mythological peoples, one eyed giants who can kill with a glance, a magical cauldron, a Goddess who can turn into a crow etc etc.

    In fact, DNA technigques show that the genetic make-up of the vast majority of people in the British Isles is the same, and it is identical to that found in the remains of people who settled here 8,000 years ago.
    It's not the same though - there may be some early stong age commonality (which is also shared with other peoples like the Basques - why not expand his theory to say... 'Peoples of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Basque country are the same') but that's so long ago as to be virtually meaningless - aren't these geneticists also only looking at specific genes as opposed to entire genomes? I reckon i can spot an Irish person standing among a group of English on sight alone.
    Last edited by Thranduil; 15th April 2010 at 01:19 AM.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    hills of donegal
    Posts
    1,247
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    nurture not nature

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people.
    The authors of Lebor Gabála Érenn must have been rabid nationalists. Spent their whole time reading Tone, Emmett, Davis and Pearse I suppose.

  6. #6
    Gadjodilo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    What now for all those engaged in nationalist politics and war-fare. Its all a big mistake??
    Nations are about so much more than just genes. There is language (hence culture), economics, religion and geographical barriers for starters.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Nonsense. If you take 60 million people, you have a distorted sample because the English are 50 million of them. DNA evidence contradicts this thesis. For example, the TCD study referred to on "Blood of the Irish" noticed a higher instance of native (first inhabitants of Ireland from 11,000 years ago -489,000 years after Britain) DNA among those with Gaelic surnames (and even among smaller majorities (62-83-52) of thoser with supposedly English/Norman/Scottish surnames because of Anglicisation of their names and inter-marriage).

    Furthermore,DNA evidence on BBC's "Blood of the Vikings" series (findings should still be on web) found DNA evidence that the native pre-Saxon British in England were in places 95% exterminated by the Saxons. Also, most English DNA was Germanic (including Scandinavian). Such distinctions couldn't have been made were there not genetic, ethnic differences. Beware of political-historians who might have agendas.
    Last edited by FutureTaoiseach; 15th April 2010 at 01:36 AM.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    0. We can't really say much about the DNA evidence without having the book in front of us. So let's assume that the results are solid and that the difference between Irish and Welsh/English etc is less than that between us and other Europeans. So not everyone needs to be genetically identical for British and Irish people to be genetically similar. It's a ridiculous proposition anyway; how do you convince a nationalist that we are sufficiently similar without being twins? He will just not believe you for his own purposes. So maybe we should believe what the author is saying about DNA rather than the internet writers.
    1. It's not extraordinary to say that nationalism was a 19th century invention. It certainly was. 1798 was a republican uprising similar to that in the United States.
    2. But liberalism is an 18th century invention, fascism a 20th century invention. There's no reason why one can't take a political stance based on an invented ideology, since all of them were. So why do nationalists claim that nationalism is old? The difference is that liberalism is rational whereas nationalism is romantic, so the rhetoric of nationalism requires the assertion of a nation throughout time to instil emotion and to subvert reason. Think of Greece's claim on the Parthenon marbles, which makes no sense from a (rational) property rights standpoint, but which has a powerful (romantic) emotive appeal.
    3. Since Irish nationalism is founded on religion and language, it doesn't need an ethnic basis beyond "our families versus their families". In fact, religion and language are pretty much all you need for nationalism. America does quite well with Christianity and English without needing everyone to look the same.
    4. The only remaining nationalist "warfare" around here is being practised by a tiny number of people in Northern Ireland, mostly people who won't be convinced by a book that goes against their beliefs.
    5. British-Irish unity is hardly a relevant "political objective" any more of any party bar the BNP and Joe Higgins's Socialists.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,033
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    Nonsense. If you take 60 million people, you have a distorted sample because the English are 50 million of them. DNA evidence contradicts this thesis. For example, the TCD study referred to on "Blood of the Irish" noticed a higher instance of native (first inhabitants of Ireland from 11,000 years ago -489,000 years after Britain) DNA among those with Gaelic surnames (and even among smaller majorities (62-83-52) of thoser with supposedly English/Norman/Scottish surnames because of Anglicisation of their names and inter-marriage).
    Still the people are substantially the same. The prevalence of the R1b (Basque) Y-chromosome marker is still, even in the most 'English' part of Eastern England (around Norfolk and Suffolk) the majority, still 70% plus. The highest incidence is actually in a small place in Wales.

    Furthermore,DNA evidence on BBC's "Blood of the Vikings" series (findings should still be on web) found DNA evidence that the native pre-Saxon British in England were in places 95% exterminated by the Saxons. Also, most English DNA was Germanic (including Scandinavian). Such distinctions couldn't have been made were there not genetic, ethnic differences. Beware of political-historians who might have agendas.
    This is just made up. There was no Anglo-Saxon 'wipe-out', just as there was no Celtic one here. The people of England are nearly entirely the descendents, with some additional infusion from various immigrant groups, of the Stone Age inhabitants who arrived there (like here) after the Last Glacial Maximum. There was no extermination, at least wide-scale, no 'replacement', and their DNA is not 'Germanic', it's majority R1b even in the Danelaw part.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    You are just latching on to one part of the DNA signature toxic-avenger.

Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •