6 ms·

Please can you explain more? I’m interested

cafard 5y ago
An Irishman of the hundred years centered on 1900 would have responded with amusement or indignation at being called "Anglo-Saxon", a term referring originally to the peoples of Great Britain east of Wales and south of Scotland. The Irish regarded themselves rather as Celts, and ones that I had received bad treatment at Anglo-Saxon hands.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
  And as we all know, ethnic identity is fully static and never changes over time, you are morally obligated to identity in a way that would be accepted by your ancestors. lmao.
ghaff 5y ago
Assuming they are relatively pure-blooded Irish, they'd more accurately describe themselves as Celtic. In theory, Anglo-Saxon has a somewhat specific meaning (descended from the Angle and Saxon tribes). In practice, the term is often generically used for descended from northern European white people (as in WASP).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Grimm1 5y ago
Generally speaking, Irish people would be of Celtic or Norman (Which I'll still probably get some pushback for saying.) ancestry. Anglo-Saxons settled the rest of the area and ever since there's been some type of issue between the groups. An Irish person describing themselves as Anglo-Saxon is entirely divorced from the roots of where many Irish people are descended, there has always been a lot of trying to erase and assimilate that history and culture. This is a somewhat tenuous topic too because there's a whole lot of history and bad blood after the times I'm speaking of and there's a different but similar issue currently brewing over there as well.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Note that no one callled them Normans before the 1800s. They called themselves English when they conquered Ireland. The Irish (Gaels) called them Saxons (Sassenach) or foreigners (Gall). After the conversion of the English to Protestantism there was a yawning chasm between the Old English (Catholic) and the New, but no one ever used Norman contemporaneously.
  - rm445 5y ago
    That can't be right. The Normans as a people played a major part in European history from at least the year 911 through the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). I've never seen the faintest indication that they weren't still called Normans after leaving Normandy, by themselves and others, e.g when invading England and Italy. I guess you meant more that the term fell out of use in England at some point, and Norman-descended people in England called themselves English. But even so, Norman is still a recognisable ethnicity - norse people who settled in France, spread by conquest into England, Malta etc. It could be a useful contemporary or historical label even if those people at a given time called themselves something else.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      The people who invaded England and Italy were called Normans. The people who invaded Ireland called themselves English, and were called English by the Irish.
      - selimthegrim 5y ago
        A different group of Norse invaded Ireland before they did England IIRC (hence why Norse-Gaels is a thing). But the Normans who invaded Ireland came via Wales largely and were not called English until the 16th century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubgaill_and_Finngaill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubgaill_and_Finngaill
        barry-cotter 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Symbiote 5y ago
The Anglo-Saxons inhabited England, not the rest of the British isles. The term more-or-less corresponds to racially English, or culturally English. The people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland were the Celts, with some subdivisions (Picts etc). But it looks like both terms are more loaded in the USA [1], so I don't want to speculate on the intent of the comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#Legacy
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > The Anglo-Saxons inhabited England, not the rest of the British isles. The term more-or-less corresponds to racially English, or culturally English. This isn’t true. The Lowland Scots are no less culturally Anglo-Saxon than the English. They were slightly less successful than the English at extirpating all traces of Celtic culture from their homeland but it wasn’t for want of trying.
deviantfero 5y ago
On the hispanic comment, Spanish is a naturally gendered language, you cannot form a sentence without giving gender to at least the subject, for example "la doctora toma el café por la mañana" would translate to "the (female) doctor drinks (male) coffee by the (female) morning" because English is a mostly gender neutral language you would loose all gender information by literally translating that sentence. Now if we take the gender out of every word in that sentence it would look something like "lx doctorx toma (we loose el, here) café por lx mañana", el wasn't necessary in the sentence to beging with, so that's fine, but the rest of the sentence becomes pretty hard to read to anyone that speaks Spanish, there's no practical way of pronouncing that unless you use the English pronunciation of the letter x. To add more depth to this, in spanish to give a gender neutral statement, you default to the male version of the noun, for example, for a group that has boys and girls, you would just refer to them as "los niños", people feel this could be dismissive of girls, if there is at least one boy in a group of girls you'd say "los niños" and depending of the context it is implied that the group has both girls and boys, so in some latin american governments they are required by etiquette to form sentences like "las niñas y los niños" instead of just "los niños" this is called around here "inclusive language" but even then most Spanish speaking people think that is impractical and unnecessary. That said, the latinx movement is kind of relevant in Argentina IIRC, but in most other latin american countries the idea will be met with a lot of resistance and rejection.
- umanwizard 5y ago
  This is all true but I don’t think it was the main point GP was making. Most “Latino” people are of at least part Native American or African ancestry; whereas “Latin” refers originally to speakers of Romance languages. Thus most (of course not all) “Latinos” who call themselves that are identifying with the subset of their ancestors who enslaved and conquered the others.
  - xhkkffbf 5y ago
    The Native Americans were also well-known enslavers. Look up who the Cherokee took with them on their trail of tears. Please don't deny their agency.
barry-cotter 5y ago
Murphy is the Anglicized form of an Irish name, Ó Murchú. One of the author’s paternal line ancestors came from Ireland, a land conquered and colonized by the English, i.e. the Anglo-Saxons. It would be one thing to say he had a honky ass white name, a cracker name, that would be in the American says American thing, who cares category. But to identify as Anglo-Saxon, an ethnic category!?! Not terribly surprising given the use of that most American of making customs, the numeral[1], but still. In much the same way as someone with Irish ancestry calling themselves Anglo fucking Saxon tells you something about their attachment to any Irish ancestry you learn something about anyone with ancestors who spoke Spanish if they self-identify as Latinx. You learn that they don’t care about the Spanish language, at all. And you learn that they use an ephitet invented by Anglos, for use by people who speak English > only 23% of U.S. adults who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino have heard of the term Latinx, and just 3% say they use it to describe themselves, according to a nationally representative, bilingual survey of U.S. Hispanic adults conducted in December 2019 by Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in... [1] If you are not a monarch giving yourself a numeral is pretentious.
- tweetle_beetle 5y ago
  I feel you shouldn't punish people for the name they were given by their parents. Changing your name is a big existential act, which I don't think it's reasonable to expect. If you've had it drummed into you from birth that you are III then it's hard to escape. That person's views about what their name represents are their own though and can be challenged.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    Americans do their American thing. That’s cool. I do my Irish thing and point out that a Murphy calling himself an Anglo-Saxon is utterly assimilated. Also cool. Americans pointing out that Irish and British people drink way more than Americans, and imbibe other narcotics at rates not normally seen outside Cuban-American locales. That’s cool. We can all notice that other people are different and get along, or not.

An Irishman of the hundred years centered on 1900 would have responded with amusement or indignation at being called "Anglo-Saxon", a term referring originally to the peoples of Great Britain east of Wales and south of Scotland. The Irish regarded themselves rather as Celts, and ones that I had received bad treatment at Anglo-Saxon hands.

8fGTBjZxBcHq 5y ago
And as we all know, ethnic identity is fully static and never changes over time, you are morally obligated to identity in a way that would be accepted by your ancestors. lmao.

ghaff 5y ago

Assuming they are relatively pure-blooded Irish, they'd more accurately describe themselves as Celtic. In theory, Anglo-Saxon has a somewhat specific meaning (descended from the Angle and Saxon tribes). In practice, the term is often generically used for descended from northern European white people (as in WASP).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Grimm1 5y ago

Generally speaking, Irish people would be of Celtic or Norman (Which I'll still probably get some pushback for saying.) ancestry. Anglo-Saxons settled the rest of the area and ever since there's been some type of issue between the groups. An Irish person describing themselves as Anglo-Saxon is entirely divorced from the roots of where many Irish people are descended, there has always been a lot of trying to erase and assimilate that history and culture. This is a somewhat tenuous topic too because there's a whole lot of history and bad blood after the times I'm speaking of and there's a different but similar issue currently brewing over there as well.

barry-cotter 5y ago
Note that no one callled them Normans before the 1800s. They called themselves English when they conquered Ireland. The Irish (Gaels) called them Saxons (Sassenach) or foreigners (Gall). After the conversion of the English to Protestantism there was a yawning chasm between the Old English (Catholic) and the New, but no one ever used Norman contemporaneously.
- rm445 5y ago
  That can't be right. The Normans as a people played a major part in European history from at least the year 911 through the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). I've never seen the faintest indication that they weren't still called Normans after leaving Normandy, by themselves and others, e.g when invading England and Italy. I guess you meant more that the term fell out of use in England at some point, and Norman-descended people in England called themselves English. But even so, Norman is still a recognisable ethnicity - norse people who settled in France, spread by conquest into England, Malta etc. It could be a useful contemporary or historical label even if those people at a given time called themselves something else.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    The people who invaded England and Italy were called Normans. The people who invaded Ireland called themselves English, and were called English by the Irish.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      A different group of Norse invaded Ireland before they did England IIRC (hence why Norse-Gaels is a thing). But the Normans who invaded Ireland came via Wales largely and were not called English until the 16th century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubgaill_and_Finngaill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubgaill_and_Finngaill
      - barry-cotter 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Symbiote 5y ago

The Anglo-Saxons inhabited England, not the rest of the British isles. The term more-or-less corresponds to racially English, or culturally English. The people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland were the Celts, with some subdivisions (Picts etc). But it looks like both terms are more loaded in the USA [1], so I don't want to speculate on the intent of the comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxons#Legacy

barry-cotter 5y ago
> The Anglo-Saxons inhabited England, not the rest of the British isles. The term more-or-less corresponds to racially English, or culturally English. This isn’t true. The Lowland Scots are no less culturally Anglo-Saxon than the English. They were slightly less successful than the English at extirpating all traces of Celtic culture from their homeland but it wasn’t for want of trying.

deviantfero 5y ago

On the hispanic comment, Spanish is a naturally gendered language, you cannot form a sentence without giving gender to at least the subject, for example "la doctora toma el café por la mañana" would translate to "the (female) doctor drinks (male) coffee by the (female) morning" because English is a mostly gender neutral language you would loose all gender information by literally translating that sentence. Now if we take the gender out of every word in that sentence it would look something like "lx doctorx toma (we loose el, here) café por lx mañana", el wasn't necessary in the sentence to beging with, so that's fine, but the rest of the sentence becomes pretty hard to read to anyone that speaks Spanish, there's no practical way of pronouncing that unless you use the English pronunciation of the letter x. To add more depth to this, in spanish to give a gender neutral statement, you default to the male version of the noun, for example, for a group that has boys and girls, you would just refer to them as "los niños", people feel this could be dismissive of girls, if there is at least one boy in a group of girls you'd say "los niños" and depending of the context it is implied that the group has both girls and boys, so in some latin american governments they are required by etiquette to form sentences like "las niñas y los niños" instead of just "los niños" this is called around here "inclusive language" but even then most Spanish speaking people think that is impractical and unnecessary. That said, the latinx movement is kind of relevant in Argentina IIRC, but in most other latin american countries the idea will be met with a lot of resistance and rejection.

umanwizard 5y ago
This is all true but I don’t think it was the main point GP was making. Most “Latino” people are of at least part Native American or African ancestry; whereas “Latin” refers originally to speakers of Romance languages. Thus most (of course not all) “Latinos” who call themselves that are identifying with the subset of their ancestors who enslaved and conquered the others.
- xhkkffbf 5y ago
  The Native Americans were also well-known enslavers. Look up who the Cherokee took with them on their trail of tears. Please don't deny their agency.

barry-cotter 5y ago

Murphy is the Anglicized form of an Irish name, Ó Murchú. One of the author’s paternal line ancestors came from Ireland, a land conquered and colonized by the English, i.e. the Anglo-Saxons. It would be one thing to say he had a honky ass white name, a cracker name, that would be in the American says American thing, who cares category. But to identify as Anglo-Saxon, an ethnic category!?! Not terribly surprising given the use of that most American of making customs, the numeral[1], but still. In much the same way as someone with Irish ancestry calling themselves Anglo fucking Saxon tells you something about their attachment to any Irish ancestry you learn something about anyone with ancestors who spoke Spanish if they self-identify as Latinx. You learn that they don’t care about the Spanish language, at all. And you learn that they use an ephitet invented by Anglos, for use by people who speak English > only 23% of U.S. adults who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino have heard of the term Latinx, and just 3% say they use it to describe themselves, according to a nationally representative, bilingual survey of U.S. Hispanic adults conducted in December 2019 by Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in... [1] If you are not a monarch giving yourself a numeral is pretentious.

tweetle_beetle 5y ago
I feel you shouldn't punish people for the name they were given by their parents. Changing your name is a big existential act, which I don't think it's reasonable to expect. If you've had it drummed into you from birth that you are III then it's hard to escape. That person's views about what their name represents are their own though and can be challenged.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Americans do their American thing. That’s cool. I do my Irish thing and point out that a Murphy calling himself an Anglo-Saxon is utterly assimilated. Also cool. Americans pointing out that Irish and British people drink way more than Americans, and imbibe other narcotics at rates not normally seen outside Cuban-American locales. That’s cool. We can all notice that other people are different and get along, or not.