Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[nenjin]

Latin and its use can be taken as a example of Imperial Europe and Catholicism's conquest of Ireland and Scotland and the displacement of their culture. Goes all the way back to Hadrian.

...but Hadrian wasn't Catholic. Nor did he conquer Ireland, or Scotland, for that matter.

Did I say Hadrian did either of those things? No, I didn't. I was merely stating where I think the beginning of "foreignness" is in regards to Irish/Scottish perceptions of cultural dominance. The Roman Empire left its mark on Britain, and then a few centuries later, what it became (its religion, the love of empire) eventually goes on to conqueror Ireland and Scotland. Because that's how far back nationalists will go to identify a point and time when they were wholly a unique people, and why Latin can be considered a symbol of cultural oppression.

[Owlbread]

It is almost certain that you are of Roman descent somewhere, Owlbread.

They did terrible things, true, but also wonderful things. They were the highest point of civilization up until more modern times. They spread that.

I think my ancestors were more than "civilised" enough. At least as civilised as the Romans, anyway.

My ancestors were Britons who interacted with the Romans, so yeah, I've probably got some Roman blood in me somewhere. Blood doesn't really concern me though.

Did I say Hadrian did either of those things? No, I didn't. I was merely stating where I think the beginning of "foreignness" is in regards to Irish/Scottish perceptions of cultural dominance. The Roman Empire left its mark on Britain, and then a few centuries later, what it became (its religion, the love of empire) eventually goes on to conqueror Ireland and Scotland. Because that's how far back nationalists will go to identify a point and time when they were wholly a unique people, and why Latin can be considered a symbol of cultural oppression.

Nenjin is articulating that which was, unto me, hitherto impossible.

[TD1]

I feel closer to my ancestors than the people that tried to conquer them.

This is why I said it. They are your ancestors too.

And in spirit and thought I'm sure the Scottish were civilized. But they didn't put it to practical use-no architecture, no maths, no public health system. The Romans were ahead of their time, mainly because they were forced to in order to keep their soldiers healthy. This gave them a fighting edge. Perhaps civilized isn't quite the right word. The Romans were more practical and knowledgeable.

They did terrible things, true, but so has every nation. The Scots have done terrible things. The Americans. The English. The Arabs. You cannot judge an entire country on this, however. That would be like me judging every Irish person according to how the IRA acted, or every Irish person were the same as the Garda who cooperated with the IRA.

Edit: To make it clear, when I said "Entire country" that means the historical civilization this conversation is based around.

[Sergarr]

The Romans represent virtually everything I hate.

Funny, for me the Romans represent virtually everything I like... at least in the military department.

[WealthyRadish]

My problem with that kind of a worldview is that you're identifying more with being racially Scottish than anything else. Culturally, you're much more similar to a Roman than an ancient Scot (if they're called that, not sure). I can stomach cultural nationalism, where a significantly different culture may wish for an independent government, but basing it off of ancestry or whatever notions of race we still have rings alarm bells like crazy. Not that this point necessarily has any relevance to the modern movement for Scottish independence, but I would still intensely disagree with removing traces of latin in Scotland.

[XXSockXX]

My ancestors were Britons who interacted with the Romans, so yeah, I've probably got some Roman blood in me somewhere. Blood doesn't really concern me though.

What then? Language? I mean Scots is a Germanic language, like English. Gaelic is Q-Celtic, and comes from Ireland, unlike the P-Celtic Brythonic languages. How Celtic languages and culture ended up on the British Isles isn't that clear either, probably as a trade-related lingua franca, since there is no archaeological evidence of a large scale Celtic migration or invasion of Britain. Archaeologically speaking none of the peoples we think of as "Celtic" today are actually Celts, if you use a narrow view, defining Celts as the descendents of the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures.
So possibly none of your ancestors have spoken a native British language since the early Bronze Age (the Picts maybe, but their language is lost). Basically the further you go back, there still are elements of foreign cultures, you just have to pick one to identify with... 

[Loud Whispers]

Possibly as the Romans never really conquered most of what would come to be Scotland?

This is true, but I hear that was more because the Romans really couldn't be arsed with us anymore; we were just too much trouble and not worth it. They did try to build a large marching camp in my county though at Inchtuthil - the same kind of marching camp that developed into some of the biggest cities in Europe, including Vienna. Who knows, maybe if they'd stayed we could have had a very different sort of Scotland.
I'm glad that never happened, though.

Emperor Domitian didn't like the guy who conquered Scotland much and replaced him. The Romans thereafter did not really care, as economic woes and wars were distracting them closer to home. Scotland might have been able to found its own world Empire if Rome had conquered it, muh roads and muh aqueducts really did help England much mpre than iron exploitation and slavery hurt it. I feel the same way about the British Empire, looking at barracks turned into parliaments, hospitals built by engineers from a century ago and the industrial powerhouses that emerged from necessity and competition. As sergarr points out, the militaries of the greatest empires were also stunning in scope and power, making for perfect romantic ideals and villains.

[smjjames]

I was gonna say Welsh, but then again, that's a celtic language. I don't think any 'native briton' languages from before the celtic group survived.

Though considering how languages generally assimilate bits of other languages (English probably did this more than most languages, in part because British Empire), wouldn't there be some traces of those origional languages in the celtic languages?

[TD1]

Getting rid of something simply out of cultural spite tends not to be good. Look at Northern Ireland. If it were suggested that Irish should replace all other historic languages, the world would go into up roar.

You want something because it's Scottish. Well, Latin has been used so much in Scotland, it is Scottish. Cultural change happens, no need to rewind back every time you see something you, in particular, don't see as Scottish. It has been in Scotland a hell of a lot longer than you have .

It's funny, no one seems to associate what America is doing now with what happened years ago. Britain saw a struggling country which need stability, and gave it to further their own interests. America..."stabilises" countries that happen to have valuable raw materials. I wonder if future history will deride Americans for this.

[XXSockXX]

Though considering how languages generally assimilate bits of other languages (English probably did this more than most languages, in part because British Empire), wouldn't there be some traces of those origional languages in the celtic languages?

Yes, in placenames sometimes, especially in river names (at least in continental Europe). Whether Pictish was a Celtic language is unknown, since there are too few surviving fragments. Generally the only fully surviving Old European (or pre-Indo-European) is Basque though, everything else is just a few fragments, often too few to identify anything really.
Also English has only very very few Celtic words (whiskey is one IIRC), it's mostly Germanic and Romance vocabulary, with a Germanic grammar. This is interpreted as a sign that the Anglo-Saxon invasions caused such a loss of prestige for the Celto-Roman culture in England that the inhabitants abandoned their language almost completely.

[smjjames]

It's funny, no one seems to associate what America is doing now with what happened years ago. Britain saw a struggling country which need stability, and gave it to further their own interests. America..."stabilises" countries that happen to have valuable raw materials. I wonder if future history will deride Americans for this.

Oh come on, most of our wars aren't even about oil!

Look at Vietnam, did they have oil? no.

The second Gulf War probably was, and the first one, while definetly in an oil rich region, wasn't wholly about oil.

Edit: Inserting quote for context.

[scrdest]

Nie mowim bardzo dobrze po polsku, albo rozumiem malo. Takze nie wiem, czy mowim po polsku lub po cescinu/ruscinu.

To English again:

We're not speakin' (alternatively, misspelled 'I don't speak' - mówię [mowie sans special characters]) Polish very well, or understand very little of it. Too don't know (slightly awkward syntax), if we talkin' in Polish or in *Google Translate derp for Czech and Russian*.

I'm ignoring the lack of special characters because it's a pain in the ass to look for different languages' characters.

[TD1]

It's funny, no one seems to associate what America is doing now with what happened years ago. Britain saw a struggling country which need stability, and gave it to further their own interests. America..."stabilises" countries that happen to have valuable raw materials. I wonder if future history will deride Americans for this.

Oh come on, most of our wars aren't even about oil!

Look at Vietnam, did they have oil? no.

The second Gulf War probably was, and the first one, while definetly in an oil rich region, wasn't wholly about oil.

Edit: Inserting quote for context.

The Vietnam war isn't a good example for you to use. France wanted its colony back. Vietnam didn't want to be a French colony. America wanted European friends against the soviet union. America fought, in this case, not for material wealth but political power.

[WealthyRadish]

It's funny, no one seems to associate what America is doing now with what happened years ago. Britain saw a struggling country which need stability, and gave it to further their own interests. America..."stabilises" countries that happen to have valuable raw materials. I wonder if future history will deride Americans for this.

That's actually something I'd like to see in the future, is how recent American history gets portrayed a century or so from now, or after the United States as an entity no longer exists. I guess it's the dream of every dissenter to have their views vindicated by future historians, or at least a pleasant consolation prize for the last 70 years.

[scrdest]

It's funny, no one seems to associate what America is doing now with what happened years ago. Britain saw a struggling country which need stability, and gave it to further their own interests. America..."stabilises" countries that happen to have valuable raw materials. I wonder if future history will deride Americans for this.

Oh come on, most of our wars aren't even about oil!

Look at Vietnam, did they have oil? no.

The second Gulf War probably was, and the first one, while definetly in an oil rich region, wasn't wholly about oil.

Edit: Inserting quote for context.

The Vietnam war isn't a good example for you to use. France wanted its colony back. Vietnam didn't want to be a French colony. America wanted European friends against the soviet union. America fought, in this case, not for material wealth but political power.

Which disproves your original point as stated. Because if you broaden it to include 'or for political power', then you can say the same about every single country ever.