Talk:English people/Archive 8

message: Norman_conquest_of_England#Norman_Heritage_and_Continental_Europe:
As early as the twelfth century the Dialogue on the Exchequer attests to considerable intermarriage between native English and Norman immigrants. Over the centuries, particularly after 1348 when the Black Death pandemic carried off a significant number of the English nobility, the two groups largely intermarried and became barely distinguishable.
As a result of Whig history, Normandy's image suffers from stereotypes of the "Popish" French people, when it was actually the "savage" Nordic nature of that province which repulsed the Catholic Anglo-Saxons.  English monarchs since Æthelberht of Kent and Offa of Mercia were part of integral alliances with the Franks, people like Alfred the Great and Charles the Bald having set the anti-Viking standard for Western Europe during the Dark Ages.  Be that as it may, the Normans succeeded in England upon the shoulders of Svein Forkbeard's dynasty and the marriage with Emma of Normandy.
William's Conquest only blended disparate elements and contemporary trends, especially relative to the Angevin Empire and the Crusades.  As a result of England's integral Continental basis, there was even an Englishman (Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall) who contested the Holy Roman Empire for himself and another Englishman (Pope Adrian IV) who won the Papal States under his wing.  Significant English notables in Continental history included: Richard I of England, Edward I of England, Antony Bek, Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster, Edward III of England, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and many, many more.
Professed "defenders" of the Commons, consider it almost akin to blasphemy to include the ("Catholic", "Pagan") Norman Lords of old as true ("Protestant", "Christian") Englishmen, often becoming profusely pedantic with regards to Carolingian pedigrees and chronological circumstances of the Mediaeval dynasties--tainted by their French, "palaeo-multicultural" Catholicism.  Extremist anti-Continental positions taken by British Enlightment, anti-Bonapartist politicians, have oftentimes helped rewrite England's part in Rome (Britannic pride wavers in England, unlike Gallic pride in France) and Europe out of history.
In the place of positive Norman stories, state propaganda in favour of the Georgian Kings who ruled Brunswick, became almost a realised manifesto for revisionist politicians who scrambled English history between the Anglo-Saxon raids and conquest of Britain and the "Saxon" Act of Settlement 1701.  It did not factor to inform the English people that the Welfs were actually of Lombardic descent, thus favourable to the Bank of England, as the Lombards were well known for their skills in banking.  It was irony for the Prime Ministerial Constitutional government vs pro-Bourbon Jacobite period, since the ousted James II married into that family for a Catholic heir in the first place.
Although not heartwarming due to their "foreign" mercantile, almost Hansa element, the Continental Orangist and Hanoverian periods in British history are still acclaimed by the same crowds which still condemn the era of Mary I of England and the House of Stuart--both of which were indigenous to the British Isles.  While the Protestant Establishment praised with glowing terms the Prussian state during anti-Jacobite and anti-American "Rebel" times, 20th Century Britain's common people increasingly grew tired of "foreign (Saxon) Royals" and their Prussian friends.  (See Edward VIII abdication crisis)
Recent polls indicate that public opinion has held the British Royal Family in lower esteem than at any other period in history, but the choice marriage of the Queen was a Danish Prince from Greece.  Consequently, it is often commented by various observers, that the British people are alienated by the Monarchy and have gone a 180 degree turn in their esteem towards the Irish--long usually considered mutually hostile.  There are Continentalists and Catholics in England, but many sources infer that they cannot be trusted subjects or citizens in the same category as "traditional Englishmen".  This goes over the very issue, of whether England and Britain owes more to its classical heritage than the barbarians of that era.  Of course, this is all propounded by Euroscepticism of a new kind.
It seems as if the Welfs/Hanoverians/Estes had a beef with the Normans as well, seeing as how the Hautevilles made it rough for the last independent Lombard states (Benevento, etc) in Southern Italy.  So while praising a legitimate descent from William of Normandy, through King James Stuart, it is pathetically disturbing to denounce the lives and ways in which they preferred to live--especially from caballistic usurpers never satisfied with their inheritance.  British politics are repulsive, to say the least.  User:68.110.8.21 06:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? TharkunColl 08:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only eh, but what on earth? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Every so often someone pops up posting tripe like this, and I'm beginning to suspect it's all the same person. TharkunColl 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your IP address is American. You are not English, and quite clearly have very little knowledge of the English. TharkunColl 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personal insults show a lack of real argument. If you knew the English, you would know that your assertions are just plain bollocks. TharkunColl 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I find your words both insulting and racist, and yet largely incomprehensible as well. Why bother contributing to this page if you hate the English so much? Incidentally, in case you were unaware, in England "Paki" is considered a term of abuse. TharkunColl 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you drunk or on drugs or something? Why can't you just write plain English? TharkunColl 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have attempted to hold an intelligent conversation with you, but you seem incapable. Furthermore, you have done nothing but insult me personally, and the English in general. I shall pursue this discussion no further. TharkunColl 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether or not you choose to read the talk page guidelines, this talk page is supposed to be used for discussion of how to improve this article. The guidelines clearly state that "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." You appear to be using this talk page only as a platform for your views rather than to discuss specific improvements to the article. That is not to say you are right or wrong in your views, just that this is not the place to do it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think an invited foreign dynasty (Hanoverians) was bad, how about a foreign dynasty (Normans) that imposed itself by force, killing vast numbers of English people in the process? If you want an example of hypocrisy, look no further than yourself. TharkunColl 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Dynastic Propaganda of Napoleonic (ex-Whig) Tories 

message: All I meant to do in the previous section, is explain that I WILL NOT LIVE IN A BOX.  Stereotypes should not be used to define the English, even if only a benchmark from which to approach their identity.  There are too many bigots who assume certain conventions that limit who an English person can be.  There is almost zero cosmopolitan understanding from such people.  Exclusivist ideology is a very sad dilemma in the British Isles right now.  A jingoistic approach has been put to test who is who and what their land means to them, with the stipulation that whoever is not them, is foreign and deserves to be seen as an enemy.  Being British means we are all Britons of common origin and even if poor relations in the past, must realise that all families go through such bouts.  You see, regional rivalries are damaging European stablity.  Separatists inevitably wear down the fabric of tolerance and fraternity.  Must problems in the UK stoop down to Yugoslavian ends?  Could you truly live like that, with such shame and lowering British pride?  People around the world may have mixed feelings about us, but they still give us the benefit of the doubt.  We have our dirty little secrets of how flawed elements in our system is, but we are supposed to put a united front before the world.  When we insist on institutionally maligning other Britons with contrived prejudices, then we all suffer.  It is an island.  Learn to deal with cramped conditions.
You see, Alun left because of this hatred.  Maybe you don't like my scolding.  68.110.8.21 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not you choose to read the talk page guidelines, this talk page is supposed to be used for discussion of how to improve this article. The guidelines clearly state that "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." You appear to be using this talk page only as a platform for your views rather than to discuss specific improvements to the article. That is not to say you are right or wrong in your views, just that this is not the place to do it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes of English people 

message: TharkunColl, while supposedly decrying aristocrats and their view of history, admittedly bites their bait, hook-line-and-sinker when it comes to that Teutonic canard.  If anybody doubts what I am writing here, they can read this:   Parliament revised history to soothe their invited masters from Germany, which proved mutually beneficial for the establishment as the Crown thereafter rarely challenged members and ministers of Parliament.  All we need is NPOV in articles.
Do you hate Wikipedia's NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW policy?
Furthermore, I am using the talk page to discuss the nature of the article, rather than engaging in edit wars with TharkunColl.
The problem is, the majority of sources and references are driven by descriptions of the English people that do not vary with the UK's government nationalism.  It is dangerous to give so much weight to dynastic propaganda that reflects the Royal Family, rather than the English people themselves.  I can't believe you all are so blind and forgetful of the alienation the English people have for their foreign royals.  The PR campaign of Prince Albert's family, was to change their name to Windsor.  Yet, you all still believe we should present their view of the English.  68.110.8.21 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think an invited foreign dynasty (Hanoverians) was bad, how about a foreign dynasty (Normans) that imposed itself by force, killing vast numbers of English people in the process? If you want an example of hypocrisy, look no further than yourself. TharkunColl 08:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dynastic propaganda used as "truth" about commoners 

message: The article presently shows the ancestry of a balkanist England, rather than as the years have gone down and a whole or complete people which has existed without regard for tribal conceptions of who the English are.  Where is the intervening story of the English people between Normanisation and the colonial era?  NPOV is the hallmark of Wikipedia.  One-sided history is not NPOV.  To those who did not believe me about propaganda, I had to remove part of the section on Normans  that defined them as a separate people, all the while saying Danes were English otherwise and making this article Saxon-centric.  TharkunColl of course, loves Whig/Victorian/Neopagan revisionisms and reverted it.  I will continue to stand for neutrality until TharkunColl and those like him give up on myopic Whiggery.  He needs to come to terms with the inclusiveness of the English people.  The English are one people, not divided into tribes but counties.  The English were not merely the Anglo-Saxons and Danes even in pre-Norman times.  If the Normans subjected anybody, where is the statement asserting this about the Danes or Anglo-Saxons to the people of Britain?  68.110.8.21 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normans vs Saxons/Danes, Forgotten Romance Britons 

message: Just to explain my edits. The article has quite a large number of wiki links that are to re-directs rather than the actual articles. Some were also to non-existent articles. Therefore in accordance with the policy of avoiding re-directs I have amended them whilst retaining the wording used for the most part. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-directs

message: Can anyone offer any suggestion as to what we should do about the anonymous troll 68.110.8.21, who keeps coming back using different addresses and adding a load of POV to this article? TharkunColl 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You engage in edit wars all over the Wikipedia in relation to national issues.  That means you are acting nationalist.  Why not cut the crap and look in the mirror.  I have only given more flesh to the article, with the hopes of NPOVing the often one-sided presentation that quaint nationalists like yourself endorse to the exclusion of a more neutral, impartial, conventional and broad-minded approach to history.  I am not the one fuming in my boots over historical issues of right and wrong.  I'm just another editor trying to preserve the balance and not label certain aspects of the English people as suspect or villainous.  Please, calm down.  68.110.8.21 22:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Report him to the Adminstrators. GoodDay 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant Tharkie, should report you. He was seeking suggestions. GoodDay 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sure.  I'll think about that. 68.110.8.21 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl must stop his rampage of wholesale vandalism to positive contributions that elaborate on the English people beyond his particular POV.  At least I am being NPOV by inclusiveness.  68.110.8.21 18:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you persist I'll report you for being a sockpuppet of User:Lord Loxley. TharkunColl 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, an IP address is never classified as a sockpuppet.  You are way off base all the time, a true sign of your hate.  I will always stand up to your bigotry.  Lord Loxley 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fantasies about aristocracy and your anti-English bias have no place in this article. TharkunColl 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so wrong.  I blame the aristocracy for the enclosures and poverty which drove half the British Isles population overseas.  I don't hate the English when that is most of my ancestry, apart from other British Isles ethnicities.  You think that NPOV means fantasy and bias?  Get a life and stop being a dick.  Lord Loxley 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How many times must that be repeated, in order for TharkunColl to cease and desist?  Lord Loxley 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If anybody sees a fault that is not ad hominem in nature, then please delineate the specifics.  All I see is bashing and self-righteous declarations.  What is unfactual about this article?  Lord Loxley 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsessive vandal

message: Calling me a vandal and then for an RFC by two committed Germanicists, is absolutely a red herring from those boys crying wolf.
Wiki-Ed plays the blame game, when he has done nothing to help the article.  What has he contributed, but noise?  Blah, blah, blah.  It's all Loxley's fault!  He paints this issue as if he is "above it all", when he has never done anything to deserve such smugness.  I get accused of "forking".  Listen to the deciever mislead himself!  Those who take advantage of systemic bias to push forth political and ethnic stereotypes against all odds and all opponents, are not worth listening to.  TharkunColl and Wiki-Ed believe the English people are not Britannic, but Germanic.  They believe that if Catholic in the present era or from a Roman area in the past, certain tribes are not included, such as Normans and Bretons in France.  If the peoples are Protestant in the present day or from a non-Roman area in the past, like Danes or Saxons in Germany, then they are part of the English people.  It is so obvious that pro-German and Nordicist propagandas violate Wikipedia policy on the face of it all.  There is no way that such blatant POV can be neutral, even if a major prejudice.  I especially love how they downplay the Romano-Briton nature behind England.  Classic!  Lord Loxley 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motives for keeping establishmentary propaganda the status quo