BoxRec

Sklar wrote:Londoner.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Dixonian wrote:Joshua was born in Watford so that automatically makes him English, British, and humble.

On the wider subject of nationality and sport... I find it absurd that the England cricket team has an Irish captain, and players from South Africa etc. We used to nab the occasional talented Scottish cricketer as well - and then send them back when they were no good. I was delighted when the West Indies beat them in the baseball tournament recently.

Frankie Boyle once described cricket as a homosexual martial art He also once tweeted 'Ireland has a cricket team?' 'This is like cool runnings'

Hahaha, that's a great line.

dalcumly wrote:I'll tell you what's really confusing about nationality. James McCarthy the Everton player was born and raised in Glasgow. His mother and father were born and raised in Glasgow. He played all his football in Scotland until he signed for Wigan - but he plays for Ireland ??

Ah but that's Ireland.

All you have to do to be considered Irish is to have once had a drink of Guinness. I think you can qualify to play for the Irish team just by visiting once as a kid.

Deserter wrote:

Taansend wrote:Reggaereggae & TunaJim think that only white people can be English. Obviously there's a lot of views on this. Both these gents have views & I respect what they think.

Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

Tuan_Jim wrote: The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years.

That is English history.
Modern day England does have non-white people playing an important part to shape it's present and future.

He's as english as white english people say he is...

You'll have to ask them...

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Taansend wrote:Reggaereggae & TunaJim think that only white people can be English. Obviously there's a lot of views on this. Both these gents have views & I respect what they think.

Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

The Indian army of world war 2.

The largest volunteer army that has ever been assembled in the history of mankind.

If it wasn't for the Indian army, there probably would be no Great Britain. The Indian army was the first of the British Empire forces (including British forces) to beat the Germans in battle in North Africa, and of course the importance they played in helping us stave off the Japanese.

I wonder if AJ knows the difference between say English and British? Serious question.

Fat Git wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

The Indian army of world war 2.

The largest volunteer army that has ever been assembled in the history of mankind.

If it wasn't for the Indian army, there probably would be no Great Britain. The Indian army was the first of the British Empire forces (including British forces) to beat the Germans in battle in North Africa, and of course the importance they played in helping us stave off the Japanese.

The yanks and the Ruskies were there to off the Nazis and Japs. Our colonial subjects while gallant did not swing WWII. Beginning to understand why people are blocking you today.

Stuarty30 wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:Aj has a holiday home in Rhyl so he's clearly Welsh.

I read he likes to kick back with some shortbread and Irn Bru blood. He is Scotch fam. Recognize.

Don't be selfish. You have Cornish.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Taansend wrote:Reggaereggae & TunaJim think that only white people can be English. Obviously there's a lot of views on this. Both these gents have views & I respect what they think.

Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

Well, mentioning the romans, you do realise that the Roman's were not all white Europeans don't you? Rome was an incredibly wide ranging empire, taking in North Africa, the middle east and near east, as far east as Iran and the whole northern coast of Africa. There were at least two Roman emporers of African descent, and likely more.

There were black courtiers in the court of Henry VIII.

Someone can be black and English, or White. It's culture that matters not skin colour. The romans knew this only too well. As long as you ascribed to Roman culture, they didn't care too much about colour.

I'm not sure what the fixation on skin colour is. It seems rather an odd distinction to me. Humans have been migrating around the globe for hundreds of thousands of years causing adaptions in physiology and melanin.

People's shared values are far more important to me, than what they look like.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

Well, mentioning the romans, you do realise that the Roman's were not all white Europeans don't you? Rome was an incredibly wide ranging empire, taking in North Africa, the middle east and near east, as far east as Iran and the whole northern coast of Africa. There were at least two Roman emporers of African descent, and likely more.

There were black courtiers in the court of Henry VIII.

Someone can be black and English, or White. It's culture that matters not skin colour. The romans knew this only too well. As long as you ascribed to Roman culture, they didn't care too much about colour.

I'm not sure what the fixation on skin colour is. It seems rather an odd distinction to me. Humans have been migrating around the globe for hundreds of thousands of years causing adaptions in physiology and melanin.

People's shared values are far more important to me, than what they look like.

Thanks James, saved me the trouble

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

Well, mentioning the romans, you do realise that the Roman's were not all white Europeans don't you? Rome was an incredibly wide ranging empire, taking in North Africa, the middle east and near east, as far east as Iran and the whole northern coast of Africa. There were at least two Roman emporers of African descent, and likely more.

There were black courtiers in the court of Henry VIII.

Someone can be black and English, or White. It's culture that matters not skin colour. The romans knew this only too well. As long as you ascribed to Roman culture, they didn't care too much about colour.

I'm not sure what the fixation on skin colour is. It seems rather an odd distinction to me. Humans have been migrating around the globe for hundreds of thousands of years causing adaptions in physiology and melanin.

People's shared values are far more important to me, than what they look like.

I'm very familiar with Roman history. If you think they were a significantly black or brown race please blow the dust off your Gibbon and begin again.

I thought Chris Eubank was now known as 'English' - has AJ also started calling himself that too?

Tuan_Jim wrote:I wonder if AJ knows the difference between say English and British? Serious question.

and more can determine the significance of 17/3 than 23/4 so what does that say about the English? Serious question.

Tuan_Jim wrote: The yanks and the Ruskies were there to off the Nazis and Japs. Our colonial subjects while gallant did not swing WWII.

They swung Britain's role in world war 2 - the role of the Indian army in North Africa and the Far East was heavily dependent on them, and they were still the biggest volunteer army in the history of mankind, that you dismiss this fact speaks more about your bigotry than anything else.

Beginning to understand why people are blocking you today.

Who gives a shite what the chimps do between tea parties.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

Well, mentioning the romans, you do realise that the Roman's were not all white Europeans don't you? Rome was an incredibly wide ranging empire, taking in North Africa, the middle east and near east, as far east as Iran and the whole northern coast of Africa. There were at least two Roman emporers of African descent, and likely more.

There were black courtiers in the court of Henry VIII.

Someone can be black and English, or White. It's culture that matters not skin colour. The romans knew this only too well. As long as you ascribed to Roman culture, they didn't care too much about colour.

I'm not sure what the fixation on skin colour is. It seems rather an odd distinction to me. Humans have been migrating around the globe for hundreds of thousands of years causing adaptions in physiology and melanin.

People's shared values are far more important to me, than what they look like.

I'm very familiar with Roman history. If you think they were a significantly black or brown race please blow the dust off your Gibbon and begin again.

The fact is, nobody will ever know just how many non-Caucasians there were, as there are not adequate records for the whole roman empire, nor a large enough sample of ancient DNA to analyse, however, the fact there were black roman emperors, obviously suggests that it was possible for a person born outside of Europe, and who was non-white to become the emporer of the Roman empire.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Taansend wrote:Reggaereggae & TunaJim think that only white people can be English. Obviously there's a lot of views on this. Both these gents have views & I respect what they think.

Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

It really depends on how far back one intends to go, as Neandatols were in Europe before Homo-Sapiens, which makes us all immigrants in the grand scheme of things.
Also, one should consider that Homo-Sapiens originated in Africa and the the first to set foot in Europe were black.

PredatorHayds wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

PredatorHayds wrote:Aj has a holiday home in Rhyl so he's clearly Welsh.

I read he likes to kick back with some shortbread and Irn Bru blood. He is Scotch fam. Recognize.

Don't be selfish. You have Cornish.

That's just mean man! Reminding me of that big sheep shagging lump of wood

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Taansend wrote:Reggaereggae & TunaJim think that only white people can be English. Obviously there's a lot of views on this. Both these gents have views & I respect what they think.

Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

I must have missed part of this argument... but do you believe that if someone's black and born in England they can't be really English? Even if they've been brought up with the same values as white British-born people with historical English lineage that dates back to Anglo Saxon times?)

keirw wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

It really depends on how far back one intends to go, as Neandatols were in Europe before Homo-Sapiens, which makes us all immigrants in the grand scheme of things.
Also, one should consider that Homo-Sapiens originated in Africa and the the first to set foot in Europe were black.

This thread is getting unnecessarily complicated

keirw wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

It really depends on how far back one intends to go, as Neandatols were in Europe before Homo-Sapiens, which makes us all immigrants in the grand scheme of things.
Also, one should consider that Homo-Sapiens originated in Africa and the the first to set foot in Europe were black.

Bingo! This is what I was getting at. The distinctions are really cultural, because essentially we're all a single species with some variants. The entire gene pool originated from Sub Saharan Africa, with the exception of a few adaptations for stuff like lactose intolerance and blue eyes , all the other genes are a subset of the ones still contained in the Sub Saharan population.

I blame Eddie Hearns and Adam Smith.

keirw wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Deserter wrote: Why would you respect that?

I said the English are a confection of Britons, Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Normans and Scandinavians, all of which observers of cold indifferent reality will attest are of white western European hue. Admittedly there is a trend now to paint observers of cold indifferent reality as sieg-heiling crackpots, although it is necessary to remove context from people's words in order to achieve this. Taansend excels at this.

The English character, language, heroes, history etc is something that was shaped over a thousand years. If you can point to me the role the non-white western European peoples played in, oh I don't know, say Alfred squelching the vikings, 1066, the Curia Regis, the 19 long winters, common law, Magna Carta, parliament, the Wars of the Roses, Agincourt, the break with Rome, the Reformation, the decision to write the King's James bible in English, the civil wars, Breda, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of rights etc etc, I would be very interested to hear it. European history has been a lifelong interest of mine but perhaps I have missed something.

It really depends on how far back one intends to go, as Neandatols were in Europe before Homo-Sapiens, which makes us all immigrants in the grand scheme of things.
Also, one should consider that Homo-Sapiens originated in Africa and the the first to set foot in Europe were black.

The thing is, I'm talking about a country's events, history and heroes that shaped whatever they ended up becoming. You're going back hundreds of thousands of years to creatures yet to create agriculture, drifting out from Ice Age Africa. No one would consider these things 'black people'. Africa wasn't even Africa.

Tuan_Jim wrote: The thing is, I'm talking about a country's events, history and heroes that shaped whatever they ended up becoming. You're going back hundreds of thousands of years to creatures yet to create agriculture, drifting out from Ice Age Africa. No one would consider these things 'black people'. Africa wasn't even Africa.

You are coming out with this very artificial narrative of what England historically was - it is bullshit! England - even today is a very divided nation culturally. The Normans only really came as far up North as Nottingham which is why the accent between North and South is so different - the Southern accent is more Norman French influenced and the Northern accent is more Danish/Saxon influenced. French was the language of law and the royal court until very late.

Even today, there are distinct cultural markers between Lancashire and Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, Cumbria, Cornwall, Northumbria - a lot of Cornish people would state their nationality as Cornish rather than English - as would a lot of Scousers. Do you honestly think all these 'English' people see themselves the same as each other?

The DNA of somewhere like Liverpool is more Celtic and Irish than somewhere like Lincolnshire which is more Viking - but they are all white and live in the artificial construct of 'England' like it matters.

What you want to do, is check out the map of Europe in 1989 and see how different it is from today - national borders and identities change because national borders change thus, national identities are only as organic as the political will of the leaders of the world in that era, it might change tomorrow.

As you are proud of being English - there have been people in history that have been proud to be Yugoslavian, East German, Soviet, Czechoslovakian - people have fought wars, won medals for their countries standing on a podium in tears, listening to a national anthem that does not exist anymore.

So, you dance away to the silly tune playing in your head that anything you care about regards race and 'national identity' matters, because it fornicating doesn't.