BoxRec

Fat Git wrote:

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 effing doesn't.

It's no wonder a man who calls himself Fat Git misses the big picture by allowing himself to be distracted by trifles.

It does not matter if a person is born here or not or if his parents are not born here, a British fighter can be someone who has learned his skills in British gyms, developed a British style, British fans, lives in Britain, if anything Lennox Lewis is less British then Joshua or Chisora, because he learned how to box in Canada and won Gold medal in the Olympics for Canada, represented Canada many times and lived there, even though he was born here.

Perhaps I'm being a trifle simplistic, but if Anthony Joshua, a man born here, with a British passport, and, based on the number of days he spends domiciled here, a British taxpayer, chooses to call himself British, he is. humbly. If I'm the Chancellor, I will take that tax.

If he then wishes to split himself further into a characterisation of English (not sure he has, but if he has, there are many here who can talk him through the intracies of the Acts of Union), so be it. Based on his current lack of lateral movement, he may need a short while of training before he can adequately Morris Dance, but the repetitive nature of the pole, and the fact that the mother of his child is proficient in it, should make him broadly accepted in the county fairs of Kent.

Someone earlier cited the Magna Carta as a bastion of the English rule of law. They should read it. And also understand it.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

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 effing doesn't.

It's no wonder a man who calls himself Fat Git misses the big picture by allowing himself to be distracted by trifles.

Touche!!

Anthony Joshua is Watfordian, English, British, the Future People's Champion and, most of all, humble.

He was born in Watford so hes Nigerian!

Loynesy wrote:Perhaps I'm being a trifle simplistic, but if Anthony Joshua, a man born here, with a British passport, and, based on the number of days he spends domiciled here, a British taxpayer, chooses to call himself British, he is. humbly. If I'm the Chancellor, I will take that tax.

If he then wishes to split himself further into a characterisation of English (not sure he has, but if he has, there are many here who can talk him through the intracies of the Acts of Union), so be it. Based on his current lack of lateral movement, he may need a short while of training before he can adequately Morris Dance, but the repetitive nature of the pole, and the fact that the mother of his child is proficient in it, should make him broadly accepted in the county fairs of Kent.

Someone earlier cited the Magna Carta as a bastion of the English rule of law. They should read it. And also understand it.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Loynesy wrote:Perhaps I'm being a trifle simplistic, but if Anthony Joshua, a man born here, with a British passport, and, based on the number of days he spends domiciled here, a British taxpayer, chooses to call himself British, he is. humbly. If I'm the Chancellor, I will take that tax.

If he then wishes to split himself further into a characterisation of English (not sure he has, but if he has, there are many here who can talk him through the intracies of the Acts of Union), so be it. Based on his current lack of lateral movement, he may need a short while of training before he can adequately Morris Dance, but the repetitive nature of the pole, and the fact that the mother of his child is proficient in it, should make him broadly accepted in the county fairs of Kent.

Someone earlier cited the Magna Carta as a bastion of the English rule of law. They should read it. And also understand it.

Difficult unless you read latin.

Loynesy wrote:Perhaps I'm being a trifle simplistic, but if Anthony Joshua, a man born here, with a British passport, and, based on the number of days he spends domiciled here, a British taxpayer, chooses to call himself British, he is. humbly. If I'm the Chancellor, I will take that tax.

If he then wishes to split himself further into a characterisation of English (not sure he has, but if he has, there are many here who can talk him through the intracies of the Acts of Union), so be it. Based on his current lack of lateral movement, he may need a short while of training before he can adequately Morris Dance, but the repetitive nature of the pole, and the fact that the mother of his child is proficient in it, should make him broadly accepted in the county fairs of Kent.

Someone earlier cited the Magna Carta as a bastion of the English rule of law. They should read it. And also understand it.

How is it possible to write so many lines and still say nothing?

Perhaps you should read the post the Magna Carta was mentioned in - and also understand it.

Don't know if this point has been made; as I do think too much energy is wasted in trying to decide what is a difficult to define, rather arbitrary label that is often more decided by one's political bias...,

Anyway what the individual genuinely believes themselves is important (and I mean genuinely, not a PR label like Lennox's 'Britishness')...

So.... What goes AJ class himself as? (Apart, obviously as humble.) I would suggest British and Nigerian is most likely. But I bet it changes depending on who's asking the question and whether it's being recorded / on TV

#stayhumble

God you English don't half go on, I'm glad I'm Welsh

reggaereggae wrote:Don't know if this point has been made; as I do think too much energy is wasted in trying to decide what is a difficult to define, rather arbitrary label that is often more decided by one's political bias...,

Anyway what the individual genuinely believes themselves is important (and I mean genuinely, not a PR label like Lennox's 'Britishness')...

So.... What goes AJ class himself as? (Apart, obviously as humble.) I would suggest British and Nigerian is most likely. But I bet it changes depending on who's asking the question and whether it's being recorded / on TV

#stayhumble

I bet when AJ is rimming Stormzy, er I mean kicking it with Stormzy; they both talkin bout dey African an ting!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Loynesy wrote:Perhaps I'm being a trifle simplistic, but if Anthony Joshua, a man born here, with a British passport, and, based on the number of days he spends domiciled here, a British taxpayer, chooses to call himself British, he is. humbly. If I'm the Chancellor, I will take that tax.

If he then wishes to split himself further into a characterisation of English (not sure he has, but if he has, there are many here who can talk him through the intracies of the Acts of Union), so be it. Based on his current lack of lateral movement, he may need a short while of training before he can adequately Morris Dance, but the repetitive nature of the pole, and the fact that the mother of his child is proficient in it, should make him broadly accepted in the county fairs of Kent.

Someone earlier cited the Magna Carta as a bastion of the English rule of law. They should read it. And also understand it.

Difficult unless you read latin.

Verum amicus.

English when he wins, British when he loses, Nigerian when the ped squad come calling.....

ThereByTheGrace wrote:English when he wins, British when he loses, Nigerian when the ped squad come calling.....

And AWOL when his bird texts him 'Anfonee I izz pregnant as fukk boii ye get me'

He's whatever he considers himself to be. British, English, Nigerian. Doesn't really matter. It's what he feels.

Through birth and residency I'd be considered English, and that's what I would also say if asked. I could, through parentage and further down the family tree though be just as considered Scottish, Irish or French as Joshua is Nigerian. I'm none of those things though, and feel no affinity towards any of them.

It's just what you consider yourself to be. It's not for anyone else to decide.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Fat Git wrote:

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 effing doesn't.

It's no wonder a man who calls himself Fat Git misses the big picture by allowing himself to be distracted by trifles.

I knew you wouldn't have an answer to it, never mind.

Cheers for all the answers.

Of course, the most important answer is what Joshua himself thinks.

I remember having the same chat with people about Lennox Lewis 25 years ago.

I left London 20 years ago but I will always be a Londoner. Or Australian if you're American

I do disagree with Reggae on this but I like his posts most of the time so respect to him

Tuan Jim is a c@nt though

He is truly a wonder:



Why doesnt image resize???

Tarkus wrote:He is truly a wonder:



Why doesnt image resize???

Those numbers add up to 101%.

He's a bloody miracle.

Anyway would'nt worry your little heads about it too much .. If he goes anywhere near Australia or Asia , the Aussies will claim him

Fat Git wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Fat Git wrote:
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 effing doesn't.

It's no wonder a man who calls himself Fat Git misses the big picture by allowing himself to be distracted by trifles.

I knew you wouldn't have an answer to it, never mind.

Because you're spouting irrelevancies. I listed a series of epochal events that took place over a thousand years on English soil, shaping the English culture and character. You offered an army of colonial subjects, fighting in the 20th century, on a different continent(!), as something that shaped the English character. It didn't. You even said Great Britain wouldn't exist without them, which is a fiction. And then, evidently desperate, you listed petty regional differences to deny an English character, even though such differences are true of every country on earth.

You don't like my point but my point is pure cold indifferent reality while your argument is emotional, irrational, agenda driven babble. Trying to disprove an English history and character by rattling off short-lived fall out countries? Everything you write strengthens my post, such is history.

Tuan_Jim wrote: Because you're spouting irrelevancies.

They are only irrelevancies because they counter your silly claims, they are not irrelevancies at all.

I listed a series of epochal events that took place over a thousand years on English soil, shaping the English culture and character.

There isn't an 'English culture and character' this is ridiculous, anyone that has a basic knowledge of England knows this, do you think a Scouser and a Cockney see themselves as the same? No. Does a Geordie and someone from Dorest see themselves as the same, no they don't. I can tell you right now that most people in my part of England would probably say they have more in common with people in Sydney Australia than they do with someone from Essex, and there is gravitas to that claim.

Most Scousers think they are culturally akin to people in Glasgow - there isn't a uniform English culture and character, it does not exist and it never ever has.

You offered an army of colonial subjects, fighting in the 20th century, on a different continent(!), as something that shaped the English character.

We would have been defeated if it wasn't for the Indian army, fact.

It didn't. You even said Great Britain wouldn't exist without them,

Correct.

which is a fiction.

Not according to Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor or any military historian worth their salt. I don't think you are in their league.

And then, evidently desperate, you listed petty regional differences to deny an English character,

They aren't - the Lancashire-Yorkshire rivalry has been going on for centures, same with Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, Liverpool and Manchester began in the dawn of the industrial revolution.

It is the same in Spain by the way, if you said to a Catalan, A Basque, an Andalucian and someone from Extremadura about 'a Spanish character' they would laugh in your face, if you told a Walloon and a Flemish person about 'A Belgian character' they would laugh at you, again same with someone from Venice and someone from Naples having a common Italian character and culture, someone from Bavaria and someone from Flensburg having the same German character and culture - it is ridiculous, no-one would agree with any of that but you seem to think that exists in England when it certainly does not. In your imagination it might.

even though such differences are true of every country on earth.

Exactly, meaning that national identity is artificial and false and most certainly man made, every national border that exists has been drawn up by someone. Those national boundaries could disappear tomorrow and your national identity will have then gone up in smoke, remember Rhodesia? Their national identity went up in smoke, just like those nice people in East Germany - they were proud of being East German and Rhodesian but no one gives a shit when it is time for the status quo to change. And to base it on skin colour - do you understand why people on here are calling you out on it?

You don't like my point but my point is pure cold indifferent reality while your argument is emotional, irrational, agenda driven babble. Trying to disprove an English history and character by rattling off short-lived fall out countries? Everything you write strengthens my post, such is history.

Your problem is that you have a bad bad knowledge of history.

And a bad bad bad knowlege of history of other countries.

If you went and asked a Londoner, a Scouser, a Geordie, a Yorkshireman and a Cornish person if they see themselves as identical with identical cultures, they would laugh at you, like I am doing now.

dalcumly wrote:And just to finish on the footballing theme and nationalty - how many of you knew that Andy Carroll was eligible to play for Scotland ? I wish I knew 10 Years ago !!

Lorenzo Amaruso was also eligible to play for scotland...

Tuan has managed to get into the same lengthy argument with two different people on two different threads. Quite an accomplishment! But how English is the accomplishment