Saying Ukraine isn't an ethnicity is a bit of a stretch. Like Ukrainian is a separate language with a distinct history, it's deeply related but not identical to Russian. Like Ukrainian ethno nationalists can be wrong about without having to deny that there is an ethnic group there. Like I guess what I am saying is that north and southern crackers in the 1860's were distinct cultural groups but formed a single nation of crackerdom, you wouldbt say that like southerners "didnt exist" and were just yankees.
I strongly disagree. This is like saying Scots are a distinct ethnicity from the English because they have some different cultural history and a language. Or the Welsh. They're really fucking not and I will die on this hill. You can have the same ethnicity while having completely different languages and cultures, I'd argue MUCH more different to Ukraine vs Russia ffs too.
Literally you are just saying ethnicity doesn't exist then. Like Scots are literally a different ethnicity than the English this isnt my opinion is a historical fact. In fact language is one of the prime determinants of ethnic groupings, and the fact that Ukrainian exists is a strong inducator of an ethnic division. You can chose to die on this hill if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong. Recognizing distinct ethnic groupings doesn't necessitate ceeding ground to ethno nationalism, it's just a recognition of historical grouping patterns.
The issue you have here is that all of Britain shares the same cultural history. It is all Celtish. And has barely had any clear distinct borders in its entire history, very much spreading that Celtish heritage in a way that muddies any distinction.
These are more accurately described as sub-groups of this single ethnic historical grouping. The strongest possible argument for a distinctly separate ethnicity among people of the british islands is Pictish vs non-Pictish. But even then these are just two different Celtish language groups.
I really don't know why you're being hostile about this.
It feels like you're overcooking the distinction between people here, where I actually live. It's significantly more of a smear than anything distinct. Celtish divided into Pictish/Non-Pictish then subdivided into Gaelic and Brittonic. Under which you have later subdivisions of modern Irish, Scottish and Manx vs Welsh, Cornish and English.
The issue you have is that all of these also spoke Common and had barely any borders. Travel was open, intermixing was open, and everything was muddy. The differences are not lines but more of a smear. The clearest distinction that can possibly be made is that the anglo-saxon settlers were a distinct ethnicity from the Celts at the time of settling. But with little limitation on the mixing between peoples and Old-English coming to replace Common-Brittonic that distinction is less clear.
I don't think many people from anywhere in Britain are going to seriously and straight-facedly say to you "I am a distinct and different ethnicity to the Welsh" in anything other than a completely mocking, circlejerky and entirely unserious way.
I am not intending to be hostile. I am just very confused as too what you think ethinc groups are, because you say that the Scottish are not a different ethnic group from the English and then in detail explain how the Scottish are actually a distinct group from the English. Like ethnic groups are not hard boundaries, some people move between them multiple times in their lives. For example tons of people n western anatolia who's ancestors 200 years ago would have considered themselves as Turkish and Greek and were only later forced to become solely Turkish due to the events after ww1. They may not have even changed anything about how they lived their lives, and may still even speak Greek as a second language. Like ethnicity isn't a genetic thing that can be tested for. It also isn't a permanent thing but something that can form expand shrink and be absorbed into another. Like Welsh is a good example of this, 100 years ago you could easily say that the Welsh ethnicity was on its way to extinction, while now it has made a huge comeback as Welsh language and culture have been encouraged in schools.
Like ethnicity also doesn't have to be a serious thing people die over. How ethnicity is handled in the US and Britain are actually one if the few things we have managed to handle well as societies.
The issue here is that the island has had a shared cultural history and language for its entire history. Common Brittonic, and later Old English.
These sub-groups had their own languages yes. But the whole island also spoke Common.
For the people in Britain this produces a distinctly blurring of groups. One where you have your own independent group and also one where you have the larger shared group. If language and culture are the two things you use to define ethnicity then among people on terf island you have the muddying effect of two ethnicities, the minor and the greater.
Yes. I'd definitely say that people here see a distinct ethnic difference there. If you look at "british" as a shared ethnicity, and view people in britain (not great britain, just britain IE the main island) as having two ethnicities (minor/greater), you can start to see why it wasn't necessary for any one single ethnicity here to wipe out the others in order to create the larger polity that exists.
Great Britain is the name of the largest island, hence 'the united kingdom of great Britain and Northern Island'.
If Irish is a separate ethnicity as it has a state but welsh is not despite sharing a common cultural history and being subject to much of the same processes of assimilation then the definition becomes tautological.
Well this is why it's more of a smear vs distinct division problem. There were different languages yes, but there was also Common-Brittonic, and later Old English.
So yes you can divide these up into smear groups but also they were mixed significantly enough to also maintain a single shared cultural language across Britain.
If language and cultural history are the definition of ethnicity then these peoples are simultaneously two ethnicities, British and their own sub-groups of gaelic/brittonic/and further subdivisions depending on which point in the history of the island you want to look at and dig into. Like I said to the other user, the clearest and least blurred ethnic distinction historically is probably the anglo-saxon settlers at the specific time of their settling.
I think "ethnicity" requires a cultural component and that's what the original distinction from "race" was. It's muddied somewhat because the terms are so loaded
The Welsh identity has always been separate to the English and only ever weakly subsumed under the British identity.
They have their own language & their own separate cultural heritage, particularly focused on public performance of music and poetry. After incorporation into England a distinct Welsh sensibility was maintained through religion with the high numbers of non-conforming protestant churches inside Wales staying formally and doctrinally separate from the Church of England. There has been no established state Church in Wales for over 100 years at this point.
The process of state formation in Britain involved a conscious and continuous effort to denigrate the Welsh language & promote the Church of England as with similar processes in Ireland.
If this does not constitute a separate ethnicity then the Irish, the Finns, the Sami, the Basque & even the Hungarians are not separate ethnicities than the capitals that used to or still do rule over them.
Hell, are the English even really separate to the French? Are we all actually Anglos because we've grown up under modern capitalism?
If this does not constitute a separate ethnicity then the Irish, the Finns, the Sami, the Basque & even the Hungarians are not separate ethnicities than the capitals that used to or still do rule over them.
Lack of shared language?
Are we all actually Anglos because we've grown up under modern capitalism?
All the examples I gave have elites speaking a common language, be it Swedish, Castilian Spanish or Austrian German: in the same way Welsh, Gaelic and Irish elites spoke English while their subjects spoke their native languages prior to the process of state formation from the 18th century onwards.
Hence by this schema there is no English ethnicity prior to the modern era as the elites all spoke French and were part of the shared common cultural history; which is why I am dubious about the analytical value of this framing.
Saying Ukraine isn't an ethnicity is a bit of a stretch. Like Ukrainian is a separate language with a distinct history, it's deeply related but not identical to Russian. Like Ukrainian ethno nationalists can be wrong about without having to deny that there is an ethnic group there. Like I guess what I am saying is that north and southern crackers in the 1860's were distinct cultural groups but formed a single nation of crackerdom, you wouldbt say that like southerners "didnt exist" and were just yankees.
I strongly disagree. This is like saying Scots are a distinct ethnicity from the English because they have some different cultural history and a language. Or the Welsh. They're really fucking not and I will die on this hill. You can have the same ethnicity while having completely different languages and cultures, I'd argue MUCH more different to Ukraine vs Russia ffs too.
Literally you are just saying ethnicity doesn't exist then. Like Scots are literally a different ethnicity than the English this isnt my opinion is a historical fact. In fact language is one of the prime determinants of ethnic groupings, and the fact that Ukrainian exists is a strong inducator of an ethnic division. You can chose to die on this hill if you want, but it doesn't make you less wrong. Recognizing distinct ethnic groupings doesn't necessitate ceeding ground to ethno nationalism, it's just a recognition of historical grouping patterns.
The issue you have here is that all of Britain shares the same cultural history. It is all Celtish. And has barely had any clear distinct borders in its entire history, very much spreading that Celtish heritage in a way that muddies any distinction.
These are more accurately described as sub-groups of this single ethnic historical grouping. The strongest possible argument for a distinctly separate ethnicity among people of the british islands is Pictish vs non-Pictish. But even then these are just two different Celtish language groups.
Wut
I really don't know why you're being hostile about this.
It feels like you're overcooking the distinction between people here, where I actually live. It's significantly more of a smear than anything distinct. Celtish divided into Pictish/Non-Pictish then subdivided into Gaelic and Brittonic. Under which you have later subdivisions of modern Irish, Scottish and Manx vs Welsh, Cornish and English.
The issue you have is that all of these also spoke Common and had barely any borders. Travel was open, intermixing was open, and everything was muddy. The differences are not lines but more of a smear. The clearest distinction that can possibly be made is that the anglo-saxon settlers were a distinct ethnicity from the Celts at the time of settling. But with little limitation on the mixing between peoples and Old-English coming to replace Common-Brittonic that distinction is less clear.
I don't think many people from anywhere in Britain are going to seriously and straight-facedly say to you "I am a distinct and different ethnicity to the Welsh" in anything other than a completely mocking, circlejerky and entirely unserious way.
I am not intending to be hostile. I am just very confused as too what you think ethinc groups are, because you say that the Scottish are not a different ethnic group from the English and then in detail explain how the Scottish are actually a distinct group from the English. Like ethnic groups are not hard boundaries, some people move between them multiple times in their lives. For example tons of people n western anatolia who's ancestors 200 years ago would have considered themselves as Turkish and Greek and were only later forced to become solely Turkish due to the events after ww1. They may not have even changed anything about how they lived their lives, and may still even speak Greek as a second language. Like ethnicity isn't a genetic thing that can be tested for. It also isn't a permanent thing but something that can form expand shrink and be absorbed into another. Like Welsh is a good example of this, 100 years ago you could easily say that the Welsh ethnicity was on its way to extinction, while now it has made a huge comeback as Welsh language and culture have been encouraged in schools.
Like ethnicity also doesn't have to be a serious thing people die over. How ethnicity is handled in the US and Britain are actually one if the few things we have managed to handle well as societies.
The issue here is that the island has had a shared cultural history and language for its entire history. Common Brittonic, and later Old English.
These sub-groups had their own languages yes. But the whole island also spoke Common.
For the people in Britain this produces a distinctly blurring of groups. One where you have your own independent group and also one where you have the larger shared group. If language and culture are the two things you use to define ethnicity then among people on terf island you have the muddying effect of two ethnicities, the minor and the greater.
My apologies I am sorry for being unnecessarily hostile.
Are the English and Irish separate ethnicities by your schema then?
Yes. I'd definitely say that people here see a distinct ethnic difference there. If you look at "british" as a shared ethnicity, and view people in britain (not great britain, just britain IE the main island) as having two ethnicities (minor/greater), you can start to see why it wasn't necessary for any one single ethnicity here to wipe out the others in order to create the larger polity that exists.
Great Britain is the name of the largest island, hence 'the united kingdom of great Britain and Northern Island'.
If Irish is a separate ethnicity as it has a state but welsh is not despite sharing a common cultural history and being subject to much of the same processes of assimilation then the definition becomes tautological.
Aren't these literally the key factors in defining ethnicity. Are you under the impression that ethnicity is purely genetic or something?
Well this is why it's more of a smear vs distinct division problem. There were different languages yes, but there was also Common-Brittonic, and later Old English.
So yes you can divide these up into smear groups but also they were mixed significantly enough to also maintain a single shared cultural language across Britain.
If language and cultural history are the definition of ethnicity then these peoples are simultaneously two ethnicities, British and their own sub-groups of gaelic/brittonic/and further subdivisions depending on which point in the history of the island you want to look at and dig into. Like I said to the other user, the clearest and least blurred ethnic distinction historically is probably the anglo-saxon settlers at the specific time of their settling.
I think "ethnicity" requires a cultural component and that's what the original distinction from "race" was. It's muddied somewhat because the terms are so loaded
The Welsh identity has always been separate to the English and only ever weakly subsumed under the British identity.
They have their own language & their own separate cultural heritage, particularly focused on public performance of music and poetry. After incorporation into England a distinct Welsh sensibility was maintained through religion with the high numbers of non-conforming protestant churches inside Wales staying formally and doctrinally separate from the Church of England. There has been no established state Church in Wales for over 100 years at this point.
The process of state formation in Britain involved a conscious and continuous effort to denigrate the Welsh language & promote the Church of England as with similar processes in Ireland.
If this does not constitute a separate ethnicity then the Irish, the Finns, the Sami, the Basque & even the Hungarians are not separate ethnicities than the capitals that used to or still do rule over them.
Hell, are the English even really separate to the French? Are we all actually Anglos because we've grown up under modern capitalism?
Lack of shared language?
"The European Garden"
All the examples I gave have elites speaking a common language, be it Swedish, Castilian Spanish or Austrian German: in the same way Welsh, Gaelic and Irish elites spoke English while their subjects spoke their native languages prior to the process of state formation from the 18th century onwards.
Hence by this schema there is no English ethnicity prior to the modern era as the elites all spoke French and were part of the shared common cultural history; which is why I am dubious about the analytical value of this framing.