More myths and misconceptions

I’ve been reading a long thread on a popular blog; among the subjects that came up during the discussion, it seems that certain myths and misconceptions pop up, as so often happens. Will some of these myths never die?

For example: the idea that ‘Germanic’ and ‘German’ are synonymous terms. What I mean is that people insist that peoples broadly described as ‘Germanic’ (that would include the Germans, of course, but also Dutch, Flemish, Austrian, and also the Scandinavians and some — and I emphasize some — of the peoples of the British Isles.

Other myths that make their appearance on the thread: that the English are ‘Germans‘ because they are Anglo-Saxon, and both the Angles and Saxons were from an area that is now part of the (fairly recently formed — in 1815) country called Germany, then the English or British are Germans. And other people insist that because the Windsor royalty who now occupy the throne of Britain were originally part of the House of Hanover or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha families, they themselves are German, even if they concede the British or English people in general are not.

The English people, in that recent DNA testing seems to show a larger percentage of Anglo-Saxon genetics than previously thought, are apparently more Germanic in descent than they are, say, Celtic, though there are those who persist in believing that the English or the ‘British’ are ‘Celtic.’ Why is this so? My guess is that being Celtic is just “in”; people admire the image that popular culture and popular ‘history’ books have presented of Celtic peoples.

The ‘Celts’ in the British Isles are, of course the Irish, the Scots (who, however, have a larger percentage of Scandinavian/Norwegian ancestry,) and the Welsh, who are considered to be descended from the native Britons who were there before the Angles, Saxons, Danes, and Normans arrived. Some of the Britons, after being supplanted to some extent by the Germanic arrivals (Angles, Saxons, et al) went to what is now Brittany, in France; their Breton language is closely related to Welsh.

British people aren’t ‘Germans’, though they are Germanic. As to the British royalty, it’s true that they are not ‘typical’ British people, but neither are they ‘Germans’, though the Windsors are descendants of the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This article goes into more detail.

In any case, is there any hope of people letting go of their notion that the British royals are ”Germans” just because the House of Hanover was of German origin?

The fact is that European royalty, considering that the various royal houses of Europe generally choose their spouses from within that group, constitutes a sort of ethnicity to itself, being mixtures of various ‘nationalities’ within the smallish circle of European royalty.

And then we come to the popular assertions that marrying within the European royal lines spells ‘I-N-B-R-E-D’, which most Americans consider synonymous with defective, mentally challenged, and “ugly”, as many Americans say. I don’t see that this follows; I think Americans’ obsession with ‘inbred royalty’ is just an excuse to ridicule European royalty. We Americans, with this knee-jerk obsession with ”equality”, somehow find it necessary to ridicule and denounce royalty at every turn. This is something I don’t share with most Americans. I don’t see that our vaunted ”democracy” has served us very well; how could a monarchy be any worse than being represented (in theory, at least) by a lot of duplicitous crypto-globalist politicians? There’s not much to convince us that this is any better than a bad monarchy.

As far as ‘inbreeding’, I don’t know what degree of relationship is considered ‘inbreeding’; I’ve read that Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were something like 6th cousins. This source says they were 5th cousins.

Whichever is true, the media don’t seem to consider the case of the Roosevelts as unhealthy inbreeding, though some royals are related no more closely than that.

I have noticed that the media seem to be pushing the theme of ‘inbreeding’ and trying to sell us on the idea of outmarrying, supposedly because it’s healthier, ”hybrid vigor” and all, new blood added to the stale bloodlines, etc. However ‘hybrid vigor’ does not seem to come into play with most human outmarriages/matings. I suspect the media is trying to push the Kalergist agenda, and they use that theme as a way of inducing people to comply. After all, we have to be equal opportunity spouse-seekers.

But as to the other genetic myths: there’s also the old urban legend about how the ”black Irish”, meaning those Irish-born people with dark hair and dark eyes, are descended from those men who were shipwrecked when the Spanish Armada was defeated by the English in 1588. This article casts doubt on that legend.

Most other sources seem to say the same; the story of Spaniards washing up on the shore of the West of Ireland and somehow fathering progeny there, enough to leave many dark-haired, dark-eyed descendants, just appeals to people who like a ‘romantic’ or spicy story. And the fact is, there are many dark-haired (and some dark-eyed) Irish people in the Western counties, and elsewhere. This seems to be from the predominant Celtic ancestry there, as in Wales, where there are more dark-haired people than fair.

But people do like these ‘colorful’ and fanciful stories. Maybe this is because people weaned on movies, TV, and fiction novels prefer stories to boring old facts.

Not that facts need be boring; I find reality interesting enough, and I read mostly non-fiction, though some think that preference is odd.

Another belief: those in the British Isles or America who have ‘Scandinavian’ origins as shown in DNA tests are descended from ‘Vikings.’ True, or not?

The fact is that the term ‘Viking’ is not an ethnic description as many Americans use it. Often the term is used interchangeably with ‘Norsemen’ or ‘Scandinavians’, at least those who lived in a certain era. ‘Viking’ was a term describing what these people did, not their ethnic origin or identity. Not every Scandinavian in the 8th-12th centuries was a ‘Viking’, though that seems to be assumed today. Still, the Scandinavians or Norsemen who became ancestors of people in the British Isles were probably seafarers/explorers/pirates, (Vikings) though this isn’t necessarily a given.

It’s tempting to think of our ancestors as ‘warriors’, adventurous, impressive people, and this may also explain the sudden popularity of the idea of Scottish or Celtic ancestry following the success of the Braveheart movie. It’s bad history, but apparently the image was something that people liked to identify with.

Again, this reminds me, too, of the sudden popularity of the ‘Celtic South’, the insistence, thanks to several popular books and a TV documentary, that the South was settled by, and mostly made up of, Scots-Irish people. Up until a couple of decades ago, Anglo-Saxons were considered to be the original colonists of the South, and the people who left their stamp on that region. But suddenly it was the Celts who made the South; they were the ‘real’ South, while the English settlers were downplayed. But some of our greatest heroes were of English descent: General Lee for example. General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson was half-English but is claimed by the Celtic South promoters as ‘Scots-Irish.’

But even the name ‘Scots-Irish’ is based on a misconception. The people described by that term are not ‘Irish’ as in Celtic Irish, usually Catholic Irish, but Protestants with no actual Irish origins; they came from Scotland, or England, usually the border counties — to the six county province of Ulster, Northern Ireland. These are the people who for so long were in conflict with the Catholic (Celtic) Irish in Northern Ireland. They are ‘Ulster folk’ and they are also called ‘borderers’.

Still the misunderstanding of ‘Scots-Irish’ persists.

There are so many of these myths and misconceptions, and they seem impervious to being debunked or corrected. They seem to be passed around the Internet by word-of-mouth, or maybe people are all getting these ideas from certain sources. In this respect the Internet has seemed to be a very efficient way of passing along many misconceptions and falsehoods. And that’s in addition to being the most efficient source of propaganda ever.

#britain, #england, #ethnicity, #genetics, #hbd, #royalty, #vikings

Brexit and prorogation

As everyone probably knows, there’s a lot of controversy over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue the British Parliament. The Left in the UK, meaning primarily the Labour Party, are having fits, and launching into their overheated rhetoric, just like our ‘homegrown’ left does at every opportunity. There has been talk, like ‘Boris Johnson wasn’t legitimately elected’ so he has no authority to take this action. And when the Queen duly issued the necessary document declaring that the Parliament was to be prorogued, of course this made the ‘Remainers’ (also known as ‘Remoaners’) even more agitated.

The UK media has some good articles on the prorogue issue, and the larger question of Brexit here and a surprisingly sane take from the Guardian.

The arcane business of the UK government and its workings in the UK is a little beyond me, but I believe Boris Johnson’s action was necessary. I think the UK must leave the EU, without a Brexit ‘deal’. It remains to be seen, though, whether this will happen as promised, because of the machinations of the Remainer faction as well as the potential actions of the EU; they technically still have a right to come back with some kind of ‘deal’ offer.

Also, another piece from David Collins at Brexit Central.

‘Occupied’ Northern Ireland?

Something of a furor has apparently erupted around the BBC referring to Kashmir as being ‘Indian-occupied.’ The brouhaha resulted when a Hindu film director Shekhar Kapur, quoted in a RT article, posed an irate question to the BBC asking why, if they call Kashmir ‘Indian-occupied’, they don’t also refer to Northern Ireland, or Ulster, as ‘British-occupied.’

First of all, Mr. Kapur is simply trying to score a rhetorical point against the BBC or Britain itself, calling “hypocrisy”, because Kapur himself is a Hindu loyalist, though he is described in the RT article as a ‘British-Indian.’ There is no such thing; he is British or he is Indian. Choose one.

According to Kapur’s biographies (there are several online, with differing information) he was definitely born in India, and educated there, then went to London. Some sources say he lives in New York. Or he is reported to live, or have lived in the Philippines, or to be back in India. It appears to me he is one of those ‘world citizens’ who jets back and forth between various countries. Where are his allegiances? Judging by this controversy he identifies with is birthplace, India, as he is defending that country vs. Kashmir.

But Kapur is drawing parallels between the India-Kashmir question and the Northern Ireland/Ulster situation. Some online commenters say that Ulster is ‘under British occupation.’ Well, if that is so, then the United States is under European occupation, with its ‘Native American’ inhabitants lacking their rightful sovereignty. After all, the ancestors of the Ulster folk, (who are mainly descended from Scots and English border-county settlers), have been in Ulster for about 400 years — as long as those of us with early colonist ancestry have had a presence on this continent. So if Ulster is ‘under British occupation’ then so is this country ‘under occupation’. That’s a much closer parallel than the Kashmir-India situation.

I’ve often wondered why the Irish so insistently claim that the ‘Brits’ must get off their island because the Irish were there first. The American Indians could make the same claim, and some do. Are we prepared to renounce our claims and go back to Europe? Do you think Europe wants us all back?

The way of the world has always been that those who can hold and keep a place are the rightful owners, not just those whose ancestors were there first. Maybe an ideal world would not be thus, but this world has never been perfect and — news flash — it never can be.

The English, or more properly the Anglo-Normans have been in Ireland since the 12th century. The Twelfth Century. That’s what, nine centuries ago? Nearly a millennium. Nine hundred years.

And if four centuries is not enough to consider the Ulster folk as natives, then just how many centuries, or millennia, does it take? Stubbornness is one thing, but this goes beyond stubbornness.

There is an Irish Republic only because the British got tired of being harried by Irish uprisings and agreed to give them a Republic — which the Irish are now, ironically, willingly ceding to Third Worlders. Ironic in the extreme, and exasperating. How are the present colonizers of Ireland preferable to the Anglo-Normans or their English successors? Apparently their presence is more agreeable to the Irish, so I can’t waste many tears on the fate of Ireland since they are willing to be colonized and overwhelmed numerically, eventually.

The fact is, I happen to like the Irish as people but I fail to understand the mindset at work there.

In my opinion the Ulster folk have a long-established right to be in Ireland. Where would they go? They are much like the Boers; what country would take them in? Not the USA because we give preference to third worlders, as does Canada, and the rest of the Western World. The Ulster folk have a right to exist and Northern Ireland has been their home as long as this continent has been the home of my lineage out of Britain.

Americans for some reason — perhaps because of the very vocal presence of so many Irish-Americans — tend to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of the Irish, with no regard for the actual history of the conflict there, with little awareness of what the issues are.

One more postscript:with all due respect, to me it’s almost as strange that so many English or British harbor a hatred for Normans and anyone of known Norman descent (which includes many Americans, if they only knew it). I say the same thing here: 1066 was a long, long, time ago, long enough to count the Normans and their descendants as belonging in Britain as much as anyone else. If people of Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish, can be included, why not those of Norman descent? The Normans, after all, were close kindred genetically, and apparently there is no easy way to distinguish those of Norman descent based on DNA.

When one’s country is being inundated with very disparate peoples it would seem an inopportune time to ‘Other’ the people who have been part of the population for a thousand years.

If it’s still acceptable to hate the Normans for whatever reason, then I guess the Irish can go on hating Strongbow and those who followed him, after all these centuries. How long can these hatreds be kept going? Wouldn’t burying the hatchet be a good move in this troubled time?

I suppose, if millennia-long grudges are the thing, then the American Indians have a right to hate Whites and to demand the whole North American continent back because — it isn’t fair that the other guys won.

Meanwhile, Mr. Kapur, the ‘British-Indian’ director, in trying to make a point in favor of his actual countrymen in India has made a historical faux pas; if only people could learn some historical lessons by this silly controversy.

Of sleeping heroes

Some of you may be familiar with old folk ballads from Britain about Thomas the Rhymer, also known as Thomas Rymer, True Thomas, or Thomas of Erceldoune. He was a Scottish semi-legendary figure who apparently did actually exist, though the stories told in the ballads are often fantastic in nature.

There are a number of cryptic prophecies credited to him, including the following verses about the future of his native Scotland:

“Tho’ wont to win, may be subdued,
And come in under yoke,
Strangers may reign, and you destroy
What likes him by sword’s stroke.

A foreign foe whom neither thy force
Nor manners do approve,
Woe is to thee, by guile and sleight
Will only win above.

This mighty nation was to force
Invincible and stout,
Will yield slowly to destiny,
Great pity is, but doubt.

[…]
Then mark and see what is the cause
Of this so wondrous fall:
Contempt of faith, falsehood, deceit,
The wrath of God withal.
[…]
Therefore this cause the prophets
Of long time did presage;
And now has happened every point
Into your present age.

Since fate is so, now Scotland learn
In patience to abide,
Slanders, great fears, and sudden plagues
And great dolours beside.

[…]
And yet beware thou not distrust
Altho’ o’erwhelmed with grief,
Thy stroke is not perpetual,
For thou shalt find relief.

Old prophecies foretell to thee
A warlike heir be born,
Who shall recover anew your right,
Advance this kingdom’s horn.”

The last verse, I’ve bolded, because it relates to the theme of this post. The last verse states that a ‘warlike heir’ will be born whose role it will be to defend Scotland in her ‘time of great need.’ According to some of the lore about Thomas, he will return, after a mysterious departure centuries ago, to act as the defender of Scotland in a dire crisis. The verses above refer to a ‘foreign foe’ who conquers and oppresses Scotland. For many people that verse has been fulfilled, with the English (as usual) filling the role of the conqueror/oppressor. But as with the Fox’s Prophecy, which I’ve posted in the past, some future event seems to be implied in both prophecies.

It’s interesting to me that I’ve read a similar story about Sir Francis Drake returning to defend his countrymen.

The most famous legendary ‘sleeping hero’ coming back to defend his folk is King Arthur, the subject of my recent post, who is said to be sleeping, awaiting a time of great need, when he will return to act as champion of his folk. Now opinions differ as to just who are King Arthur’s folk in modern-day Britain; I believe the Welsh legends say Arthur will come back to defend the Welsh against the Angles, Saxons, Normans, et al. However the popular belief today seems to be of a more all-inclusive King Arthur who will defend the people of Britain.

It is interesting to me that these stories of a hero or warrior from past ages ‘awakening’ to champion his besieged people are so widespread in Europe, as you will read on this page. These ‘sleeping heroes’ include Frederick Barbarossa of Germany and Holger Danske, or Holger the Dane, who is apparently hailed as a symbol by some in the ‘counterjihad’ movement.

It would seem that this would be the ideal time for these ‘sleeping heroes’ of Europe to awake, as their countries are in dire need right now;  how much worse does it have to be?

The fact that these legends are so widespread in Europe makes me wonder if the Europeans of olden time, being more in tune with the mystical and supernatural, had intuitions or intimations that Europe would one day be in very dire straits. It seems that time is here.

As for America: are we bereft of a ‘sleeping hero’ who will come back to fight for us? America has the ‘Grey Champion’ of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story.  Was the story of the Grey Champion based on an existing legend, or did Hawthorne base the character on the European “sleeping heroes’?

Sadly for Americans, I don’t see any champion, ‘Grey’ or otherwise, on our horizon. It may be that one will emerge when our need is greatest. But we seem to be so disunited that I wonder just who could succeed in uniting us.

If this is all fantasy, then humor me in it; we all need something to keep our spirits up and to offer us some hope in these difficult times.

Christians, however, have the very real promise of a more-than-human champion who will ultimately prevail for us.

 

 

 

England, Britain: “What’s in a name?”

“What’s in a name? Names express ideas, and he who uses wrong names is not likely to have right ideas. Britain [is] a geographical name. England is the land of the English. It is important [we] never apply the names England or English to the land or people of Britain in the days before the land became England by the English people settling in it. If we do we take people for our forefathers who are not our forefathers.” – E. A. Freeman, 1879