Reading The Prague Cemetery, it's kind of amazing how completely divided 19th Century Italy was. I knew what it was like linguistically, but Simonini, the hilariously bigoted narrator, seems to view Savoyards as more French than Italian at some points, and views Sicilians as something close to apes, even if he develops an affection for (surprisingly red sauce free) Sicilian cuisine during his escapades in newly unified Italy.
What nations in Europe do you guys think are the most divided? I'd say Italy is near the top, with Germany and Spain coming up there too. Belgium is hardly a country, so I'm not sure that counts. I don't know if France would be up there today thanks to the campaign against regional languages. Conversely, the Slavic expansion happened at time when most of the Germanic and Romance languages were already somewhat established, so there's a lot less diversity, especially within the big linguistic divides. Russians are surprisingly linguistically and culturally homogeneous in most respects, given how old and vast the country is.
Yoo Kay
The Whole concept of "Italy as a single nation" is ludicrous.
L.
The United? Kingdom
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:04:50 PM
Yoo Kay
I don't think so. Welsh is only spoken in the far north-west of Wales, Scottish is hardly spoken at all, the entire country is Protestant. Having 300 years of unified government does a lot to unify a country, too.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
I don't think so. Welsh is only spoken in the far north-west, Scottish is hardly spoken at all, the entire country is Protestant. Having 300 years of unified government does a lot to unify a country, too.
But they view themselves and each other as distinct people. In your example everyone speaks Italian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
I don't think so. Welsh is only spoken in the far north-west, Scottish is hardly spoken at all, the entire country is Protestant. Having 300 years of unified government does a lot to unify a country, too.
But they view themselves and each other as distinct people. In your example everyone speaks Italian.
Completely wrong. There are at least 5 different languages in Italy. Sardinian is no more closely related to Italian than it is to Romanian.
Quote from: Pedrito on November 29, 2013, 12:07:05 PM
The Whole concept of "Italy as a single nation" is ludicrous.
L.
Sure thing Mr. Bossi.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:19:32 PM
Completely wrong. There are at least 5 different languages in Italy. Sardinian is no more closely related to Italian than it is to Romanian.
How many Sardinians speak Sardinian?
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
I would put Romania up there. Romanians, Hungarians, Gypsies, maybe some leftover Germans (I don`t know), plus Moldavian and Wallachian Romanians hate each other allegedly, and there are the Szekelys who are like backwards mountain Hungarians living in one big blob in the middle of the country, resisting all efforts to even start assimilating.
Is Russia in Europe?
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2013, 12:32:45 PM
backwards mountain Hungarians living in one big blob in the middle of the country, resisting all efforts to even start assimilating.
Only in America!
For Yi. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Languages_spoken_in_Italy_Bis.svg)
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
Gaelic is one thing.
But look at this and tell me, with a straight face, that it is English as spoken in the rest of the country.
Scottish Star Trek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEg5NDZ6rnM)
By that token, Dutch and Germans share a language. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
I don't think so. Welsh is only spoken in the far north-west, Scottish is hardly spoken at all, the entire country is Protestant. Having 300 years of unified government does a lot to unify a country, too.
But they view themselves and each other as distinct people. In your example everyone speaks Italian.
Careful now QQ is in one of his 'defining' moods, never mind the possibility that a majority of one nation could decide to swan off and form a separate country within the next two years.
QQ, how divided was Czechoslovakia in 1989 ?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 29, 2013, 12:33:13 PM
Is Russia in Europe?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F60619000%2Fgif%2F_60619659_kaliningrad.gif&hash=effe5acdd29017679af21430ad829497431f771d)
Yes
France is still in North America too. :mad:
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2013, 12:52:14 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:34:51 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 29, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 29, 2013, 12:33:13 PM
Is Russia in Europe?
Do you want me to answer that? :P
At least their language is Indo-European, Turanian.
My language is Finno-Ugric, thankyouverymuch.
I was using Turanian in it's classic non-Indo European sense. It was used as a catch-all term for Steppe peoples for a thousand years by Iranians, and throughout the 19th Century and in to the 20th. It was hard to think of an insulting catch-all term for Finno-Ugric peoples.
Quote from: Syt on November 29, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
Gaelic is one thing.
But look at this and tell me, with a straight face, that it is English as spoken in the rest of the country.
Scottish Star Trek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEg5NDZ6rnM)
By that token, Dutch and Germans share a language. :P
I understood like 80% of that. Granted, the UK has some pretty extreme dialects (and Scots, a different language separate from the Scottish English in that video), but I think you'd have a harder time understanding Swiss German as an inhabitant of Eastern Frisia than I did with that. :huh:
Italy is pretty screwy. Spain and Belgium are up there as well. Fortunately they've found a way to keep unified: Every speaks English.
I want Belgium to break up so the Netherlands can be restored to Union of Utrecht greatness. :wub:
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
We're pretty diverse, thanks. Slightly ahead of Italy, I'd say. What would you exactly want to know?
As for France, I'd say that it's a bit more diverse than people credit them.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
One should not confuse Spain with Castille, even if most of us speak Castillian now.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
One should not confuse Spain with Castille, even if most of us speak Castillian now.
Don't tell that to a Portuguese. :P For them every spaniard is a castillian, except for basques and catalans. Us galicians are honourary portuguese. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:02:39 PM
Reading The Prague Cemetery, it's kind of amazing how completely divided 19th Century Italy was.
Should've seen it in the Renaissance.
Diverse: showing a great deal of variety; very different.
Divided: separate or be separated into parts.
Spellus strikes again.
I don't see the problem.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
First of all, it's not completely wrong that Italians speak Italian.
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting for independence. Italians on the other hand are derived from one ethnic stock (with a sprinkling of Germanic in the north and, I wager, even less Arab, Norman, and Greek in the south) and one language family.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:04:50 PM
Yoo Kay
You catch that scotland white paper stuff? Hilarious.
WE WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT, BUT WE'LL KEEP THE QUEEN AND THE POUND.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting for independence. Italians on the other hand are derived from one ethnic stock (with a sprinkling of Germanic in the north and, I wager, even less Arab, Norman, and Greek in the south) and one language family.
I would disagree that Scots / Welsh / Irish / English derive from different ethnic stocks. The languages have different origins, but my understanding is that genetically the people of the British Isles are practically identical. The same basic stock of people has been on the isles for millenia, each speaking different celtic variants, but that England, being conquered in turn by the Romans, Danes and Normans, adopted the language of their conquerors and turned it into english.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2013, 03:04:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:04:50 PM
Yoo Kay
You catch that scotland white paper stuff? Hilarious.
WE WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT, BUT WE'LL KEEP THE QUEEN AND THE POUND.
AND YOU'LL STILL BE ABLE TO WATCH CORONATION STREET
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 03:14:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 29, 2013, 03:04:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 12:04:50 PM
Yoo Kay
You catch that scotland white paper stuff? Hilarious.
WE WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT, BUT WE'LL KEEP THE QUEEN AND THE POUND.
AND YOU'LL STILL BE ABLE TO WATCH CORONATION STREET
I'll watch Kate Middleton's bum.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fjhm4SMlGnbk%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=a3af4747804ecf0582d6941d0949bd13977edba4)
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
I would disagree that Scots / Welsh / Irish / English derive from different ethnic stocks. The languages have different origins, but my understanding is that genetically the people of the British Isles are practically identical. The same basic stock of people has been on the isles for millenia, each speaking different celtic variants, but that England, being conquered in turn by the Romans, Danes and Normans, adopted the language of their conquerors and turned it into english.
What I've read suggests that the infusion of Angle, Saxon, and Jutish blood was pretty significant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
First of all, it's not completely wrong that Italians speak Italian.
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting for independence. Italians on the other hand are derived from one ethnic stock (with a sprinkling of Germanic in the north and, I wager, even less Arab, Norman, and Greek in the south) and one language family.
Totally wrong.
Italians are in the middle of the Mediterranean and have, either as Romans or as the head of the Catholic Church, been at the center of European civilization for the vast majority of the last 2,000 years. You'd get massive importations of slaves during the Roman period, and after that the Church, as well as trade and other cultural centers, would draw in people from across Europe. Italians are extremely diverse. In the South, most people are going to have Greek, Arab, Balkan, Sicilian, native Siculi, Catalan, German and Norman ancestry. In the north, you're going to have a ton of Celtic influence, some Greek influence, and a lot more German and Slavic influence. Whole parts of Italy were speaking Greek or Arabic long after the British Isles was a settled mix of two different Celtic groups and the English.
I think Italy is at least as heterogeneous as Britain. There really isn't some kind of magical Celtic-Germanic racial divide. The origin of the Celtic peoples is in modern Bavaria and the Czech Republic, meaning they're not really that distant from the origin of the Germanic peoples in Denmark and old Saxony. There was always German-Celtic intermingling, both on the continent and in Britain. A lot of basic terms in Germanic and Slavic languages have Celtic roots. The Saxon migration had a huge impact on southern Scotland, which went from a Welsh-related Celtic language to English with no intervening period of Gaelic. Also, the Norse invasion of the British isles pretty much hit the "Celtic" and "Germanic" parts pretty evenly, except maybe for Wales and Cornwall.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
I would disagree that Scots / Welsh / Irish / English derive from different ethnic stocks. The languages have different origins, but my understanding is that genetically the people of the British Isles are practically identical. The same basic stock of people has been on the isles for millenia, each speaking different celtic variants, but that England, being conquered in turn by the Romans, Danes and Normans, adopted the language of their conquerors and turned it into english.
What I've read suggests that the infusion of Angle, Saxon, and Jutish blood was pretty significant.
It's spread out where you'd guess it would be spread out-concentrated in York and across the eastern seaboard. However, the Saxon settlement of southern Scotland and the Norse invasion of everything would even things out a bit.
You know Squeelus, I think "totally wrong" means something different to you than it does to most people.
:lol:
Fair enough. You got some of the basics right, but I'm still pretty confidant that Italy is a lot more culturally and genetically diverse than Great Britain.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
One should not confuse Spain with Castille, even if most of us speak Castillian now.
That was kind of the entire point of the question in my post. I was wondering if a man from Grenada, Extremadura or Leon thought of himself primarily by region or thought of himself as vaguely "Spanish". Also curious how these regional identities co-exist with separatist identities like the Catalans or Basques.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
I would disagree that Scots / Welsh / Irish / English derive from different ethnic stocks. The languages have different origins, but my understanding is that genetically the people of the British Isles are practically identical. The same basic stock of people has been on the isles for millenia, each speaking different celtic variants, but that England, being conquered in turn by the Romans, Danes and Normans, adopted the language of their conquerors and turned it into english.
What I've read suggests that the infusion of Angle, Saxon, and Jutish blood was pretty significant.
Ditto. And I figured someone serving Her Majesty the Queen would know better.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:02:39 PM
Reading The Prague Cemetery
:wub:
Quoteit's kind of amazing how completely divided 19th Century Italy was. I knew what it was like linguistically, but Simonini, the hilariously bigoted narrator...
This is a wonderful literary device as you will come to appreciate as you go further in the book and which we can discuss later so as not to ruin it for you.
Quote from: derspiess on November 29, 2013, 04:05:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:17:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 03:12:05 PM
I would disagree that Scots / Welsh / Irish / English derive from different ethnic stocks. The languages have different origins, but my understanding is that genetically the people of the British Isles are practically identical. The same basic stock of people has been on the isles for millenia, each speaking different celtic variants, but that England, being conquered in turn by the Romans, Danes and Normans, adopted the language of their conquerors and turned it into english.
What I've read suggests that the infusion of Angle, Saxon, and Jutish blood was pretty significant.
Ditto. And I figured someone serving Her Majesty the Queen would know better.
You and Yi are thinking of the old theories of migration that have been significantly altered by the more recent studies BB is thinking of.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
First of all, it's not completely wrong that Italians speak Italian.
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting for independence. Italians on the other hand are derived from one ethnic stock (with a sprinkling of Germanic in the north and, I wager, even less Arab, Norman, and Greek in the south) and one language family.
Totally wrong.
Italians are in the middle of the Mediterranean and have, either as Romans or as the head of the Catholic Church, been at the center of European civilization for the vast majority of the last 2,000 years. You'd get massive importations of slaves during the Roman period, and after that the Church, as well as trade and other cultural centers, would draw in people from across Europe. Italians are extremely diverse. In the South, most people are going to have Greek, Arab, Balkan, Sicilian, native Siculi, Catalan, German and Norman ancestry. In the north, you're going to have a ton of Celtic influence, some Greek influence, and a lot more German and Slavic influence. Whole parts of Italy were speaking Greek or Arabic long after the British Isles was a settled mix of two different Celtic groups and the English.
I think Italy is at least as heterogeneous as Britain. There really isn't some kind of magical Celtic-Germanic racial divide. The origin of the Celtic peoples is in modern Bavaria and the Czech Republic, meaning they're not really that distant from the origin of the Germanic peoples in Denmark and old Saxony. There was always German-Celtic intermingling, both on the continent and in Britain. A lot of basic terms in Germanic and Slavic languages have Celtic roots. The Saxon migration had a huge impact on southern Scotland, which went from a Welsh-related Celtic language to English with no intervening period of Gaelic. Also, the Norse invasion of the British isles pretty much hit the "Celtic" and "Germanic" parts pretty evenly, except maybe for Wales and Cornwall.
Spellus, Italy may have the diversity of the UK, but I don't think there are many parts of Italy that have a historical nation to try to restore (Venice maybe?). The history of Italy in a nutshell: The Roman Empire, under which Italy was united, followed by a bunch of dysfunctional and often short-lived feudal states that (outside of Venice) I doubt many would take much pride in, swept aside by a modern Italian state under which Italy transformed into a modern country.
Scotland, on the other hand, was effectively separate from England for all of its history prior to the early 18th century, and for a variety of reasons the following period of the UK is a bit of a difficult subject to base a modern identity.
Scotland was
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 03:29:52 PM
:lol:
Fair enough. You got some of the basics right, but I'm still pretty confidant that Italy is a lot more culturally and genetically diverse than Great Britain.
I'd agree on genetically, but I'm not so sure about culturally.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 03:19:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:30:18 PM
1 million, so 16 times more than speak Scottish Gaelic and maybe 300,000 more than speak Welsh. And that's one regional language.
First of all, it's not completely wrong that Italians speak Italian.
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting for independence. Italians on the other hand are derived from one ethnic stock (with a sprinkling of Germanic in the north and, I wager, even less Arab, Norman, and Greek in the south) and one language family.
Totally wrong.
Italians are in the middle of the Mediterranean and have, either as Romans or as the head of the Catholic Church, been at the center of European civilization for the vast majority of the last 2,000 years. You'd get massive importations of slaves during the Roman period, and after that the Church, as well as trade and other cultural centers, would draw in people from across Europe. Italians are extremely diverse. In the South, most people are going to have Greek, Arab, Balkan, Sicilian, native Siculi, Catalan, German and Norman ancestry. In the north, you're going to have a ton of Celtic influence, some Greek influence, and a lot more German and Slavic influence. Whole parts of Italy were speaking Greek or Arabic long after the British Isles was a settled mix of two different Celtic groups and the English.
I think Italy is at least as heterogeneous as Britain. There really isn't some kind of magical Celtic-Germanic racial divide. The origin of the Celtic peoples is in modern Bavaria and the Czech Republic, meaning they're not really that distant from the origin of the Germanic peoples in Denmark and old Saxony. There was always German-Celtic intermingling, both on the continent and in Britain. A lot of basic terms in Germanic and Slavic languages have Celtic roots. The Saxon migration had a huge impact on southern Scotland, which went from a Welsh-related Celtic language to English with no intervening period of Gaelic. Also, the Norse invasion of the British isles pretty much hit the "Celtic" and "Germanic" parts pretty evenly, except maybe for Wales and Cornwall.
Spellus, Italy may have the diversity of the UK, but I don't think there are many parts of Italy that have a historical nation to try to restore (Venice maybe?). The history of Italy in a nutshell: The Roman Empire, under which Italy was united, followed by a bunch of dysfunctional and often short-lived feudal states that (outside of Venice) I doubt many would take much pride in, swept aside by a modern Italian state under which Italy transformed into a modern country.
Scotland, on the other hand, was effectively separate from England for all of its history prior to the early 18th century, and for a variety of reasons the following period of the UK is a bit of a difficult subject to base a modern identity.
Scotland was
I think you're looking at it too much from a EU computer game perspective, and not enough culturally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:07:37 PM
You and Yi are thinking of the old theories of migration that have been significantly altered by the more recent studies BB is thinking of.
The old theory was that Romano-Britons were eliminated by Saxon invaders. The new theory is that substantial numbers of Saxon invaders intermarried with Romano-Britons to create the English.
Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
I think you're looking at it too much from a EU computer game perspective, and not enough culturally.
It depends what we are talking about...Ultimately I think Western Europe is quite homogenized--I think more than it ever has been before. But countries like the UK and Belgium have a chance to fracture in the near future.
If we are going to consider why the UK and Belgium have their current problems, I don't think culture the biggest part of the story.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:07:37 PM
You and Yi are thinking of the old theories of migration that have been significantly altered by the more recent studies BB is thinking of.
The old theory was that Romano-Britons were eliminated by Saxon invaders. The new theory is that substantial numbers of Saxon invaders intermarried with Romano-Britons to create the English.
And when recent genetic studies looked at your theory they concluded the "substantial number of saxon invaders" were not all that substantial after all and that the genetic makeup hasnt changed much for thousands of years - just as BB suggested.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:39:43 PM
And when recent genetic studies looked at your theory they concluded the "substantial number of saxon invaders" were not all that substantial after all and that the genetic makeup hasnt changed much for thousands of years - just as BB suggested.
In a debate on modern culture and politics, if we are looking for evidence of what was going on 1000+ years ago through genetic testing, I think we getting lost in the weeds a bit.
Quote
Spellus, Italy may have the diversity of the UK, but I don't think there are many parts of Italy that have a historical nation to try to restore (Venice maybe?). The history of Italy in a nutshell: The Roman Empire, under which Italy was united, followed by a bunch of dysfunctional and often short-lived feudal states that (outside of Venice) I doubt many would take much pride in, swept aside by a modern Italian state under which Italy transformed into a modern country.
Tuscany, Southern Italy+Sicily, Romagna and Lazio, Lombardy, Venice, Liguria and Savoie have all spent the vast majority of the last 1200 years as separate states with tenuous to non-existent ties beyond the Church and sometimes the Empire. Heck, Sicily was Latinized as much by Normans as by "Italians."
Heck, within that, a lot of these areas had autonomous cities or regions that absolutely hated each other.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:07:37 PM
You and Yi are thinking of the old theories of migration that have been significantly altered by the more recent studies BB is thinking of.
The old theory was that Romano-Britons were eliminated by Saxon invaders. The new theory is that substantial numbers of Saxon invaders intermarried with Romano-Britons to create the English.
IIRC the exact numbers are kind of in the middle. I saw a statistic that the average East Anglian shares 60% of the Basque-derived native Briton haplogroup, while a Welshman shares about 90%. That extra 30% is actually quite a bit though. I got mistaken for a native a lot more in Berlin or Wurzberg than in Powys. Most people in Turkey guessed I was Dutch or German. My background is almost exclusively English.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 04:59:03 PM
IIRC the exact numbers are kind of in the middle. I saw a statistic that the average East Anglian shares 60% of the Basque-derived native Briton haplogroup, while a Welshman shares about 90%. That extra 30% is actually quite a bit though. I got mistaken for a native a lot more in Berlin or Wurzberg than in Powys. Most people in Turkey guessed I was Dutch or German. My background is almost exclusively English.
Not familiar with CC's new theory?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 04:56:49 PM
Quote
Spellus, Italy may have the diversity of the UK, but I don't think there are many parts of Italy that have a historical nation to try to restore (Venice maybe?). The history of Italy in a nutshell: The Roman Empire, under which Italy was united, followed by a bunch of dysfunctional and often short-lived feudal states that (outside of Venice) I doubt many would take much pride in, swept aside by a modern Italian state under which Italy transformed into a modern country.
Tuscany, Southern Italy+Sicily, Romagna and Lazio, Lombardy, Venice, Liguria and Savoie have all spent the vast majority of the last 1200 years as separate states with tenuous to non-existent ties beyond the Church and sometimes the Empire. Heck, Sicily was Latinized as much by Normans as by "Italians."
Those states were frequently associated with foreign nations or the church. Do you really see them as the basis for a serious modern independence movement?
That's only a part of the topic of this thread. I'm more interested in practical or primary identities rather than who wants to break away from whom. An Irishman has far more in common with an Englishman than an inhabitant of Inner Mongolia does with a Fujianese man.
The Lega Nord has promoted secession on occasion and independence or or greater regional control is fairly common in many Italian regions.
Quote from: The Larch on November 29, 2013, 01:33:37 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
One should not confuse Spain with Castille, even if most of us speak Castillian now.
Don't tell that to a Portuguese. :P For them every spaniard is a castillian, except for basques and catalans. Us galicians are honourary portuguese. :lol:
:yes:
Since I speak Castilian and am familiar with Mirandese (related to Astur-Leonese) my view is a bit more nuanced but yes there is some truth to that.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 06:04:21 PM
That's only a part of the topic of this thread. I'm more interested in practical or primary identities rather than who wants to break away from whom. An Irishman has far more in common with an Englishman than an inhabitant of Inner Mongolia does with a Fujianese man.
My opinion: western europe is basically a homogenized place and it is difficult to accurately generalize differences between populations beyond language and politics. Yes there are differences in that more Germans drink beer than in France. But show me a value and lifestyle profile of a random person and ask me to tell you if they are from Germany or France, and I can't do better than an educated guess.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 07:05:37 PM
But show me a value and lifestyle profile of a random person and ask me to tell you if they are from Germany or France, and I can't do better than an educated guess.
This person: yells at strangers who jaywalk and saves 10% of his income but only invests it in the lowest-yielding, safest bank instruments.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 07:13:22 PM
This person: yells at strangers who jaywalk and saves 10% of his income but only invests it in the lowest-yielding, safest bank instruments.
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification. What does the person say when yelling at jaywalkers? Please provide your answer untranslated.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification. What does the person say when yelling at jaywalkers? Please provide your answer untranslated.
I can't remember the actual dialogue. Let's assume for the sake of argument the person says "You're supposed to wait for the light!"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification. What does the person say when yelling at jaywalkers? Please provide your answer untranslated.
I can't remember the actual dialogue. Let's assume for the sake of argument the person says "You're supposed to wait for the light!"
A Tory voter in England with UKIP tendencies?
Why not French?
Wales/Scotland/England aren't the truly divisive divisions in the UK. There's far more of a SE England/the rest divide.
The answer is of course Bosnia-Herzegovthingy.
I'd say Russia, which is made up a vast number of groups.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 03:03:51 PM
Second of all, the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English derive from totally different ethnic stocks and language families, and have retained a strong sense of national identity and are even now in the process of voting against independence.
FYP -_-
Regional devolution is the what is right for Scotland :scots:
The reason I think this is because London is such a huge monster politically, economically, and culturally that its influence will always be overwhelming. Best for the Scots to continue to have a large say on how it is run while securing as much self-rule as possible. It is just a win-win.
Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
Wales/Scotland/England aren't the truly divisive divisions in the UK. There's far more of a SE England/the rest divide.
This is spot on and has been a big problem historically in the UK.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:39:43 PM
And when recent genetic studies looked at your theory they concluded the "substantial number of saxon invaders" were not all that substantial after all and that the genetic makeup hasnt changed much for thousands of years - just as BB suggested.
In a debate on modern culture and politics, if we are looking for evidence of what was going on 1000+ years ago through genetic testing, I think we getting lost in the weeds a bit.
Agreed, but since the debate between BB and the two who disagreed with him was one regarding genetics I am not sure your observation is all that relevant. ;)
Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
The answer is of course Bosnia-Herzegovthingy.
I think this is the right answer. The country has spent the last 15 years or so under foreign control because different factions in the country can't be trusted to coexist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 07:38:16 PM
Why not French?
I don't think the stereotype is for such people to be french.
I really don't believe that though. I suspect the French have their share of miserly cranks that invest conservatively.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 29, 2013, 08:17:15 PM
The answer is of course Bosnia-Herzegovthingy.
I think this is the right answer. The country has spent the last 15 years or so under foreign control because different factions in the country can't be trusted to coexist.
They're also tiny, monolingual and share a common cuisine and until the early 90s had been getting along pretty good.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 12:08:12 AMI think this is the right answer. The country has spent the last 15 years or so under foreign control because different factions in the country can't be trusted to coexist.
And in some ways it's getting worse. It wouldn't massively surprise me if there was another conflict there :(
In terms of culture of countries I've visited, I'd say France or Italy. Though I've never been to Germany or Spain properly.
France may all speak the same language, with a few local dialects, but the cultural difference between Provence and La Rochelle and Brittany are huge. That's part of the reason France is so great.
Italy's got similar cultural differences with everyone speaking dialect first and Italian second. Again it's part of why Italy's such a great place to visit.
By contrast Belgium's got linguistic differences and separatist politics but there's really very little difference, in my experience, from Francophone Belgium and Flanders.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 07:28:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 07:20:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 07:17:54 PM
I'm going to have to ask for a clarification. What does the person say when yelling at jaywalkers? Please provide your answer untranslated.
I can't remember the actual dialogue. Let's assume for the sake of argument the person says "You're supposed to wait for the light!"
A Tory voter in England with UKIP tendencies?
More likely an American since Britons tend not to yell at "Jaywalkers".
[A motorist would express his displeasure with his horn and a passing by pedestrian wouldn't be bothered enough to do anything more than sigh - assuming they were part of the 0.01% bothered enough to do anything.]
I say this as a Tory voter with UKIP tendencies.
Yeah. I doubt that'd even get a raised eyebrow. Jaywalking's a weird Americanism. Maybe Germans take it seriously?
Nobody takes it seriously here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2013, 09:18:28 AM
Yeah. I doubt that'd even get a raised eyebrow. Jaywalking's a weird Americanism. Maybe Germans take it seriously?
Not really. I've never heard of anyone getting fined or told off by police for crossing the street where they weren't supposed to. In Vienna I once (accidentally) crossed a red light in front of a police car. The policemen grinned when they noticed I was a bit embarrassed and one wagged his finger at me.
Pedestrians crossing despite a red light is pretty common, especially if there's a tram to catch.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 29, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 29, 2013, 12:33:49 PM
How would Spain rank? I don't really know how well established non-Catalan/Valencian ethnic identities are. I'd actually be interested in anecdotes on the subject. Galician linguistically is far closer to Portuguese, and I would be interested to know how "Spanish" certain non-Castilian types view themselves.
One should not confuse Spain with Castille, even if most of us speak Castillian now.
That was kind of the entire point of the question in my post. I was wondering if a man from Grenada, Extremadura or Leon thought of himself primarily by region or thought of himself as vaguely "Spanish". Also curious how these regional identities co-exist with separatist identities like the Catalans or Basques.
It varies from person to person. Some see themselves as Spanish first, some see themselves as Aragonese or Andalusians, some as Europeans, most as a combination of the above. Many simply don't care that much.
The one thing we have in common is most of us are annoyed at the antics of Catalan/Basque nationalists though.
In any case trying to show others how proud you are of being Spanish is often frowned upon and marks you as part of the extreme right (unless there's a World Cup or something).