maybe this is an outright dumb question, and if it is, ill move on with my previously ignorant self, but what makes the Scottish people not more Anglo than Celt?
>speak not only English mostly, but even have their own Anglic language, Scots, that is spoken more than Scottish Gaelic
>have historical ties to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms like Northumbria
and overall have been buddies with the English through most of their recent history
what am i missing that makes them Celtic?
This map is pretty much the divide you will see between catholic/protestant, highland/lowland, celtic/anglo influenced etc.
Ofc thats historically speaking, nowadays, after the industrial revolution, there are large mixed populations in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh.
And if you look closely you'll also notice that the green half, which used to have a population equal to the pale half, is now almost completely depopulated.
Anglo fucking shits.
Norse-Gaelic settlement that outbred/genocided the Picts (also considered Celtic), and were only slightly colonized by Anglos. By slightly, I mean enough that they made an impact but not enough to overtake them. Also, you seem to have a less than elementary understanding and could have found this info easily. People are already being spoiled by /his/.
so Highlanders are Celtic, whereas Lowlanders are basically Anglos?
looking at languages, that makes sense, you've got Gaelic in the northwest, and Scots in the southeast.
Well the lowlanders are sort of Scots who decided they wanted to be Anglos and copied them, rather than actual Anglos (though I'd reckon people in the borders are as much English as Scottish).
Also nowadays you wont notice it, but in the past there was a bit of a distinction between the Islanders (me) and the Highlanders (sheep shaggers). This is because the Isles were either independent or largely autonomous for several centuries.
nifty, i honestly fear for these cultural holdouts. to think that so many of these wonders will disappear with globalization and time is frightening. even the great tongues will feel the need to squash others just to stay alive.
Most of the wonders are already gone, so much of the culture was destroyed by the lowlanders after the 1745 Jacobite rising, which put such a fear of the Gaels into the rest of the country that they spent 200 years trying to stamp the culture out. Only in the past few decades has the course been reversed, and has effort been put back into safeguarding what's left and expanding the reach of the remaining knowledge.
Scotland was once almost entirely Gaelic
Define Celtic first maybe? There are several definitions, some competing, some supporting each other. You have cultural Celts, language Celts, geographic Celts, biological Celts, those called Celts by others, those who named themselves Celts, Insular Celts, Ibero-Celts, Central European Celts, the list goes on.
Some have more than one of the above in their mixture, some have different ones from others, some have the same but never met, others have different and lived next door.
All ethnic identities are based in part on how people view themselves.
Tunisian Arabs have the same claims to bring Punic as Scots have to bring Celtic, but due to historic accident (and potentially the late arrival of nationalism to the Islamic world), Tunisian Arabs do not speak or identify as Punic, which means that modern Tunisians cannot be considered a Punic people.
Do you have Gaidhlig?
I speak Irish and I always wanted to see if I could hold a conversation with a scot. Apparently it's easier for ulster cunts.
There are several gaelic words and phrases still scattered around the lowland scots dialect. Although we do essentially speak germanic language, it is an adopted language.
It's also worth noting that although certain English dialects are dying out, the glaswegian accent is flourishing.
Don't listen to the unionist disinfo shills in this thread. Scottish culture is quite different from England.
Pretty good TED talk about Scots if you've got a spare 15 minutes
Tha me a' bruidheann beagan Gaidhlig, or bha sinn ga ionnsachadh e san sgoil, ach cha bhi mi ga cleachdadh e moran na laithean seo. Agus chan eil fios agam ciamar a' dean thu strach air a' choimpiutair.
>biology is nazism
Ello Reddit! This might be news to you but different groups of people have different DNA.
Proto-Celts had their own even if it wasn't very special compared to other Central Europeans.
>An mothú nuair a thuigeann mé tú
Céard é "Strach"? an "fada" Albainnis é?
Más é, is féidir ctrl+alt+an litir a bhrúigh, ach ceapaim go bhfuil an fada drom ar ais in Gáidhlig na hAlbainn.
It all comes down to who dominated the country at any given time, after the Gaels entered the country they landed in the Highlands and uprooted the Picts, establishing themselves in the North giving birth to the Kingdom of Alba.
Eventually with the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria in a weakened state along with the Anglo-Saxon and Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde both in weak positions, the Gaels made their advance south, conquering this land and establishing the modern kingdom of Scotland around the year 900, however they failed to uproot the Lowland populace who remained in the country with their own countries, despite the elite of the country and the highlands speaking Gaelic and being of Gaelic origin.
However around 1286 the death of Malcom III led to both the Scottish Wars of Independence and a serious succession crisis, and coming out on top of this struggle was Robert the Bruce, a Lowland Scot with a faint connection to the Gaelic monarchy, of both Scots and Norman stock, and after his victory and reestablishment of his Kingdom lowland Scots became the dominant group, though Norman became the language of the royal Court, Middle English which would eventually evolve in modern English and the Scots dialect eventually became the language of the elite too when the Stuarts rose to power in the 1300s.
Clans map highlights the split between the two peoples fairly accurately, despite having a lower population density the Highlands were divided into far more groups of warring clans, while the Lowlands with a larger area and population tended to be dominated by a smaller group of landed families, even a difference in naming convention is noticeable in areas.
Despite the Highland clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries reducing the population of the Highlanders further, by forcing them of their land (which had largely been usurped by the Lowland elite at this point) which they worked through farming, when it realised farming livestock in the region was far more profitable, and leading to a mass exodus to the colonies and the USA (where today more descendants live today than in the UK) the difference is still noticeable on modern halotype maps.
>Mo aodainn nuair a' tha me gad thuigse
Seo a' tha strach.
Cha bheill fios agam gum bidh na h-Eireannaich a' chleachdadh e, agus chan eil fios agam ciamar am bith thu ga dheanamh air pios cac keyboard sasannach.
>Language + Religion = Ethnicity
Even the English are far more Celtic than Germanic
Our culture has been part of Europe since forever. Influenced by it, and influencing it in turn. The people are descendants of the pre-Indo-Europeans in a way that most populations of Europe are not, like the Basque. We are also descended from most of the later migrants to Europe, who usually made it to the islands, particularly the Celts, and later the Norse.
Plus you have to remember the eight hundred years of (honestly, mostly successful) attempts to change that culture to be another part of the British mix.
Irish are actually pretty IE genetically. Basques got a little fugged by IE men so they carry the same paternal marker as Indo-European horse nomads from Russia whose descendants live in Ireland now these days.
Traditionally, the Y-DNA comes from the invaders, while the mt-DNA comes from the locals. It's no surprise that paternal markers come from recent migrants.
This is different in situations where the ethnic cleansing of natives was considered more prudent, of course.
Poppycock based on what every current nationality of Europe can claim to have it's roots in the very first populations on the continent. What are the actual features in Irish culture that precede the IndoEuros?
Are you looking for cultural or physiological traits? These would be hard to find, since Ireland is now within the general European mix for culture, physiology, and genetics, it's less dominated by IE-DNA than average.
Like I said from the start, we also have the DNA from all the migrants to Europe.
No, the modern Irish displaced the original inhabitants of the Islands during the Indo-European migrations.
Ireland - Eire - Arya
Cultural of course, DNA and physiological traits will always be insignificant in what makes an ethnic identity.
Right now your claims of being the indigenous of Europe, like the Basque aren't exactly waterproof. Rather it seems to me that a greater amount of previous populations legacy survived in Ireland, which is just an interesting sidenote in history
Not displaced, overwrote would be a better description, I think. Displaced implies they first got rid of the natives, but they didn't, they married them.
Then the history of modern Irish culture can be seen in the full light of history, we have our prehistory; then eight hundred years of being mostly peacefully Christianized while maintaining local traditions (mostly based around cattle rustling); eight hundred years of being British dominated; and a hundred years of being a mostly neutral western European Atlantic state without a history of supplying colonialism.
We're actually pretty unique; the only country in the world with a lower population now than two hundred years ago; a part of the Anglosphere, but also a former colony of Britain.
I don't care how much I modify my behavior, belief system, customs, style; I cannot ever belong to the Bantu ethnic group because I am not fucking black.
End of story bud.
Your children already could though, if they'd be halfblood.
But alright, I admit I was being eurocentric, didn't thought of other races. So basically inside a common race the physiology is insignificant, and slight differences in Y- and mt-DNA even more
So if national consciousness is defined by ethnicity, then members of another ethnicity cannot be part of that nationality?
But if nationality is defined by something else, then ethnicity is not relevant?
Overall, you're right. It was more like foreign warrior aristocracy marrying the local nobility and leaving the peasants alone. Often times people would adopt the language and culture of their rulers, or the rulers would accept the language of their new subjects to blend in better.
The widescale exterminations of the modern era make us think that it was always this way
>So if national consciousness is defined by ethnicity
where did I imply that?
Are you saying black people can't be Americans?
Germany has always been defined by the presence of Germans.
Ireland and North Ireland are separated along ethnic lines.
France get's it's name from the Frankish ethnic group.
>where did I imply that?
When you said that if national identity were based on being Bantu, nothing a non-Bantu could do would make them part of that national identity.
>Are you saying black people can't be Americans?
I'm saying they can. American is defined as 'born in the USA', it does not involve any ethnicity.
>Germany has always been defined by the presence of Germans.
Yes, but German-ness has never been strictly about ethnicity, it was also a cultural phenomenon.
>Ireland and North Ireland are separated along ethnic lines.
No. I mean, I don't even, it was basic imperialist gerrymandering, not ethnic, not even religious.
>I don't care how much I modify my behavior, belief system, customs, style; I cannot ever belong to the Bantu ethnic group because I am not fucking black.
>End of story bud.
This was not you?
We can define national identity however we like. If you choose to make it about ethnicity, then it is. If you choose to make it about culture, then it is.
>has never been strictly about ethnicity, it was also a cultural phenomenon.
can we please just say race already?
what part about
lead you to believe that I was implying they were somehow identical?
>can we please just say race already?
If race were really the most neutral term to use, I would use it. Ethnicity is better, so as not to confuse what we know about human populations today with what nineteenth century slavery and colonial apologists knew about human populations.
>lead you to believe that I was implying they were somehow identical?
The part where anon said
>>I don't care how much I modify my behavior, belief system, customs, style; I cannot ever belong to the Bantu ethnic group because I am not fucking black.
>>End of story bud.
If I missed the point, explain it now.
Actually, I think the black plague could give a good comparison.
But you're right, in any metric, the Americas after contact is without peer in history. Holy hell, people have lived through apocalypses in real-life.
>I think the black plague could give a good comparison
It's not. The estimated % of deaths are by no means comparable. And it's not like europe didn't suffer plague before. Not to mention that the black death effects were in some ways positive in the long run for the nations that suffered it. All in all, they're not the same. Black Plague is just the more similar thing in our european collective memory so it's natural that it comes to our mind when we hear about disease killing so much people.
In terms of the way the infection spread, and how it was a result of greater connectivity due to the opening of the silk road.
I'm not arguing that the New-Old World interaction was a lot worse, it was. It's just that the Black Plague is the closest to it, a distant second place.
Albannach are literally the same people as us, but an Sasanach síoraí has convinced many of them that they are 14/88 Anglo-Saxon Germans loyal to the """British""" Crown.
It's a sad case, especially in Occupied Ulster; where countless Unionists have Gaelic surnames, some retaining the "Mac".
You could not be more wrong. Stop this bullshit.
The black plague was devastating, over 50% of semany countries populations were gone, entire communities were wiped out across the entire erasian continent. It took generations to recover, and ler to massive social change.
And it was just one of the mega plagues that hit eurasia. The plague of justinian ravaged the byzantine empire, estimated to have killed at least a third of the capital.
Yes, the new world plagues were probably worse, but not by as much as you are implying. Many areas of the new world have primarily native populations. From mexico to venezuela peru to bolivia . In fact, its only the anglophone colonies where natives are not a major component of the population.
Stop claiming the eurasian megaplagues were not comparable to the new world ones. They definitely are. If the black plague had been slightly worse, it could very easily have been europe that was completely depopulated. Also, the mongols actively spread the plague by catapulting corpses into beseiged cities throughout eurasia, yersinia pestis is thought to have originally been a disease of rodents in yunnan province of china that the monggolss pucked up on their campaigns thereand inadvertantly spead westwards. The mongols trashed the entire middle east, to the point that agriculture and infrastructure has still not revovered to this very day.In some parts, There is even less than 2 centuries between the old world and new world plagues anyway. The mongol invasion of eurasia and spread of plague are a prime comparison to the new world colonisation and spread of plague by europeans.
Austin Alchon, Suzanne (2003).A pest in the land: new world epidemics in a global perspective. University of New Mexico Press. p.21
Basically, the Picts were not killed off.
There is no archaeological evidence to support mass killings of this kind, and the sole reason this theory is put forward is due to a very dubious Medieval manuscript which claims Kenneth MacAlpine invited all the Picts to a feast and massacred them.
In actuality, it seems that Norse settlement pushed Gaelic noble families into the Pictish court, and that a coup forced two young princes into exile in Ireland.
By the time they were restored they were naturalised Gaels and they went on to rule about 75 years between them. Hence, Gaelic became the dominant culture in Pictland and slowly replaced it through creolisation.
An Soitheach Rìgheal would be "the royal ship". Would be pronounced something like "Seh-och ree-ol"
The King/Queen's ship would be "An soitheach a Rìgh/Bhanrìgh"
Can't think of a word for majesty in Gaidhlig that would make sense in this context, so can't give an exact translation.
Because expressions like 'Celtic fringe' and 'Celtic nations' are really English statements about England. Like the Greeks with their barbarians, or the Romans with their Celts, the English invented an other in order to use them as a backdrop to recognise themselves.
The primary thing Scotland, Wales and Ireland have in common isn't Celticity — however that's defined, whether through ethnicity or abstract art — but their experience of English expansion.
The chit-chat about ethnicity is largely a distraction because, if you look at the history, Scots have never really claimed ethnic unity. There are highlanders, the lowlanders, the picts, the celts, the sheepshaggers and on it goes (and some of those identify themselves on an ethnic basis), but collectively 'Scots' as a national identity is located more in history and achievement than in biology or language.
The Anglos, on the other hand, have a muddle. They have their projections of what 'the Celts' are (and what the Anglos are not) and they have a twisted muddle where British is used interchangeably with English, but usually for things they think of as the best part of their identities… and they have English, where they nest some of their worst.
It's all very confusing.
Very possibly, I must admit I don't know those words though.
I think the old style would be
Coinneach mac Maoil Chaluim, Rí na h-Albannaich. (Kenneth, son of Malcolm, King of the Scots)
I think later on they began styling themselves in Latin more, so it would be Kenneth Dei gratia rex Scotum. (Kenneth, by the grace of God King of the Scots)
Are the niggers in the US supposed to be at all Bantu?
But he's right. Do you think all Russians descend from early Slavic tribes? Or that all Turks descend from slant eyed nomadic conquerors? Linguistic and cultural continuum are way more important to ethnic identity than genetics.
>The Scottish people (Scots: Scots Fowk, Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and socially defined ethnic group resident in Scotland. Historically, they emerged from an amalgamation of two groups—the Picts and Gaels—who founded the Kingdom of Scotland (or Alba) in the 9th century, and thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celts. Later, the neighbouring Cumbrian Britons, who also spoke a Celtic language, as well as Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons and Norse, were incorporated into the Scottish nation
>In modern use, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to anyone whose linguistic, cultural, family ancestral or genetic origins are from within Scotland.
Yeah, the "Scots" are an pretty much extinct celtic people. The Scottish are who live in Scotland today.
It's only independence babbies that play up LE PROUD FREE SCOTCH PEOPLE OPPRESSED BY THE ENGLISH. We civilised people in Edinburgh know that 99% of our culture and makeup is shared with the English. And they put fucking hurdy-gurdy never-spoken-here-in-a-thousand-years Gaelic on the roadsigns! Embarassing.
Don't know about Scottish gaelic but in Irish it would be "long an rí/banríon" basically the king's/queen's ship. There's no equivalent term to "her majesty" as far as I'm aware, there isn't much of a courtly culture in Ireland.
long riada means royal ship and it's nicer sounding in Irish
Yes, and then it evolved within a Celtic milieu. It is spoken by millions of Celtic people. That makes it culturally Celtic.
I mean you appreciate that culture can actually adapt and change over time, right?
You are also aware that "Celtic" as a linguistic term is also completely arbitrary, right?
But how are they Celtic if something as crucial as language isn't Celtic? Things like that matter, you're not Celtic just because, it involves things like language.
Also, Celtic languages are an actual branch in the Indo European family, it's concrete.
Yes, but there's way more to Celtic culture than just speaking a Celtic language, it's about sharing an identity with Celtic peoples of history.
Just to say that anyone who speaks English as their first language or is even a monolingual English speaker isn't Celtic is really just another attempt to marginalise that identity, massively important in this post-colonial era.
And I never claimed that Celtic languages didn't exist, I just pointed out the fact that "Celtic" as a linguistic term is quite arbitrary. If scholars were approaching it today, for example, they'd probably call it "Atlantic", rather than "Celtic".
>France isn't Celtic because it used to be Gaul
I would disagree, and feel that's entirely your own opinion. Ultimately, Scots are Celtic because they've always been Celtic and because they choose to keep identifying as Celtic.
The "Lowlands are actually English" meme really need to die.
No there isn't, because culture is voluntary.
The deciding factor in regards to culture and identity is precisely your feelings towards it, you cannot be a part of that culture if you refuse to take part in it.
Culture is, by definition, made up of things like language, religion, architecture, and so on. Not your attitudes towards it, and even if that were so, it's be only one of many things.
>I speak for all whole kingdom
I'm getting the feeling you're Scottish. Can you say anything in Gaelic?
>Culture is, by definition, made up of things like language, religion, architecture, and so on. Not your attitudes towards it, and even if that were so, it's be only one of many things
No, that is wrong, because culture and identity is voluntary thing. You have to choose to be a part of it. Do I have to keep explaining this to you?
And anyway, even if Scots don't speak Gaelic, they are still Scots and a massive part of that national identity is bound up in Celtic culture and history.
>Can you say anything in Gaelic?
Óró sé do bheatha abhaile :^)
No, because they aren't being serious.
They might call someone from Edinburgh a sassenach, but they'll still pick them over a proper sassenach.
>the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
you can identify as Celtic, but that doesn't make you Celtic. identity is subjective. but culture is objective. OP isn't about whether you think you're Celtic, but about whether you are culturally.
Culture can't be objective, it's a social construct.
And again, membership of a group and of a society is predicated on the choice of an individual to be a part of that group or society.
In short, if I think I am Celtic then that is the deciding factor in whether or not I am Celtic.
If I choose to be British, that makes me British, if I choose to be Scottish that makes me Scottish.
Yes, and the grouping of those institutions into a "culture" is a social construct.
I'm studying archaeology in the same institution as V. Gordon Childe taught, you're not going to win here by cherry picking definitions off internet dictionaries.
>Merriam-Webster isn't good enough
You aren't bringing substance to the table, merely claiming your title validates you. You say your identity is Celtic, which is wholly true. Culturally, the Scottish lowlands is very Anglic, identity won't change that.
Because Scots as a national identity originated from the Gaelic settlers and overlords of the former Pictish (also Celtic) lands.
Similarly the vast majority of Irish people speak English, but are recognized as Celtic because that's where the national identity spawned from.
>but even have their own Anglic language, Scots
Dialects aren't languages. The fact that it seems very disjointed and foreign to standard English speakers is similar to Ebonics, but that isn't a language either.
>Merriam-Webster isn't good enough
Merriam-Webster agrees with me.
>the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular SOCIETY, GROUP, place, or time
>You aren't bringing substance to the table, merely claiming your title validates you.
No, I'm trying to explain to you that a crucial element of culture is based upon membership of a society and social group, and that the deciding factor in membership of a society and a social group is to actually choose to interact with those groups socially.
If you don't like me making the same points again and again, I suggest you stop refusing the blatantly obvious.
But, even if we were to use your (incorrect) reasoning, the lowlands are still Celtic, just not linguistically.
I wouldn't say that's Irish revisionism, I think it's taking Medieval chronical sources at face value, coupled with the Medieval inability to understand that culture is subjective and can change.
The only reason they could understand for a culture and a language dying out was if everyone who spoke that language and was born into that culture died out.
Culture is associated with groups, membership of a group is voluntary.
Identity is, therefore an essential aspect of culture.
And just because you keep saying that isn't an "actual" point won't make it true.
He downright said genocided...
There is no evidence to suggest they were genocided nor was there any posted in this thread, nor will there ever be.
What he really meant was assimilated. And that's the term you lot are looking for too.
Celts still exist they have just been assimilated into anglic culture like the picts were to gaelic
Things that make up culture, religion, language, architecture, are indeed objective. There is Roman religion (Roman pantheon), architecture (their Style), and language (Latin). There is Celtic language (Celtic languages, such as Gaelic and Welsh), Celtic religion (Celtic paganism, such as Epona), and architecture. If feelings were all that mattered, I could claim to be Chinese abd by your definition I am.
I never said the Celts were dead.
I just said that the theory the Picts were killed off wasn't an Irish revisionism, it is very well established in the chronicals. For the record, the fact it is in the chronicals doesn't mean it's actually true.
Yes, there are certain religions and languages and art styles associated with certain groups.
But, those groups are voluntary, subjective and a social construct.
Hence, the grouping of religion, languages and art associated with a certain group into a "culture" must, necessarily, also must be subjective and a social construct.
If you say you're Chinese that doesn't mean you FEEL Chinese.
But if you do FEEL Chinese you CHOOSE to interact socially with the Chinese group, and you will CHOOSE to interact with Chinese culture.
But, no matter how much you interact with another culture and another group you will not be part of that group or belong to that culture unless you CHOOSE to be a part, unless you FEEL like it.
What, that a chronical says that the Picts all died out?
But there is one, from about the 11th century.
Again, I DON'T THINK IT'S TELLING THE TRUTH.
Work on your reading comprehension, fucking hell.
I mean the story about the Picts being killed off comes from an English chronicle anyway.
A big part of the evidence that the Gaels didn't genocide the Picts comes from the Ulster Chronicle.
>Yes, there are certain religions and languages and art styles associated with certain groups.
This defines those groups. You don't become Celtic by deciding you are, you adopt Celtic culture, everything is associated with something, Scots language isn't Celtic, it's Anglic.
It is intelligible, it just requires some getting used to.
This is why I put forward Ebonics as a an example, most Americans are already familar roughly with the ins and outs of African American vernacular so it doesn't seem quite as alien from regular English as it is. Being from Northern Ireland for similar reasons Scots isn't that unintelligeble, it just seems kind of like an archaic version of the local modern dialect similar to how Shakespeare is very different to modern English but perfectly understandable once you get into the flow of it.
>This defines those groups. You don't become Celtic by deciding you are
You literally do.
And even then, the Gaelic language is only one very particular facet of Celtic culture, you can still be a Celt without speaking it.
Well the Picts were a Celtic people, that's accepted but it is debated over whether the Gaels were actually Irish settlers or Scots who simply adopted Irish culture due to very close interaction.
>Scots who simply adopted Irish culture
>Latin-language sources often referred to the inhabitants of Dál Riata as Scots (Scoti in Latin), a name originally used by Roman and Greek writers for the Irish who raided Roman Britain.
That literally proves nothing.
Look at the "Scythians", the Greeks could never agree where they actually were.
And even then, what if the adoption of Gaelic culture by the Scots simply took place prior to regular Roman contact with Scotland?
The Welsh are the only true celts remaining
The Irish should be definitely considered Anglo. Only thing that makes them different from the British is Catholicism. 99% of them can't even speak their own fucking language. They speak English natively but butcher it so bad it's laughable
I can speak my own language, thank you. There is a huge movement of people re-learning Gaeilge.
1916-2016 will be remembered as the years of the Sinn Féin revolutions.
I'm not some Mick from New England. I'm an American Southerner with family here since 1766 and an Anglo surname.
Nice try in any case, you're not bringing up anything valid, good ad hominem.
>You literally do.
Of a Celt takes on culture that isn't Celtic, his culture just became less Celtic, not that the new cultural factors stopped being what they once were abd became Celtic. French culture is overwhelmingly Latin, it's not all Celtic just because they were once Gauls.
>And even then, the Gaelic language is only one very particular facet of Celtic culture, you can still be a Celt without speaking it.
Certainly, no doubt Scotland is still Celtic. Things like the Kilt is Celtic, as it is Celtic in origin. The Scots language is Germanic in origin, as it is Anglic.
>unironically supporting a French catholic puppet when there's a manly dutch alternative who established Britain as the main antagonist of France, thus paving the way for the dominant position of Great Britain in the 19th century
>France is bad now
France is our greatest ally and we would be better off had we not spent 1000 years trying to cuck them.
The Dutch on the other hand are faggots.
Being Scottish is literally a social construct.
I have a classmate raised in Scotland but born to Shona parents.
He's literally more Scottish than an anon born to Scottish parents but raised anywhere but Scotland.
Being English is literally a social construct.
I have a classmate raised in England but born to Indian parents.
He's literally more English than an anon born to English parents but raised anywhere but England.
> Many areas of the new world have primarily native populations. From mexico to venezuela peru to bolivia . In fact, its only the anglophone colonies where natives are not a major component of the population.
Out of those places only Bolivia and perhaps parts of Central America have a majority Amerindian population. In all the other countries the brown people you see are rape babies from a few Conquistadors and the remaining Amerindian women after almost all the Amerindian men died off.
Well, if I'm remembering my history of the British Isles right, Irish raiders often set up in villages they razed on the coasts of Modern day Scotland. They called them Scotti which meant Raider, but yeah technically Scots unless pure scott are Irish.
We aren't. In fact, if you consider language as the best objective measure of ethnicity, Scots are the purest anglo-saxons on the British Isles. Seriously, compare common Scots words with similar words in Danish and Swedish, then compare them to words in English. Reason for this being that the anglos in the Kingdom of Alba didn't get their shit cucked by the French in 1066. Over the next few centuries they wrested control of the Kingdom from the Gaels (reformation has a big part in this as the lowlanders become calvinist zealots while the highlanders remained catholic for the most part). The Scots didn't even regard the Gaels as kinsmen, referring to them as "Erse" (Irish) and actively suppressing their culture (see Statues if Iona among other things).
The modern day celtic memery can be traced to the huge (seriously, HUGE) influx of Irish immigrants in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, that essentially resurrected the old Scots Protestant/Gaelic Cathoic divide.
Before the fenian hordes turned up, Scots were ardent defenders of the Protestant faith and easily the most enthusiastic proponents of the British Empire.
It's literally this simple:
Scots - Anglo-Saxons that weren't cucked by the French
Scottish Gaels - Irish inhabiting Scotland, cucked to near extinction by the Scots
Only reason any gives a shit about the Gaels is because there are over a million extremely butthurt Catholic Irish diaspora in Scotland today.
Pic related, fans of Celtic Football Club. Entirely comprised of Catholic Irish diaspora. You will never catch them flying a Scottish flag. If one of them dares to, it will be outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Irish tricolour. Only when the sun sets in the east will you see a Union Flag in within 40 feet of a celtic supporter.
>What about Scots clan culture? Isn't that Gaelic?
Only partially. Many of the Highland Clans were scotticised by the 15th century or earlier. A good chunk of them accepted protestantism with little to no coercion. Epicentre of Catholic Gaelic resistance was in the traditional Gaelic heartlands of the Western Isles, led by the Clan MacDonald. Early modern Scottish history is littered with recurring conflicts between the powerful Lords of the Isles (Gaelic) and the Monarchy of Scotland (Scots). Many of the Gaelic clans were forced to submit to Scots hegemony by the beginning of the 17th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Iona). Some of them held out, which led to incidents of extreme violence such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe.
Ultimately the Gaels were suppressed and placated. Vast majority of them converted to Protestantism, only remote areas of the Western Isles maintained catholic communities. Until of course the Great Famine happened and roughly a million Catholic Irish mendicants turned up on our doorstep.
>And what about Braveheart?
Bears a very loose resemblance to Scottish History. The period it is based on was pre-reformation. Kings of Scotland at that time were bilingual and two groups co-existed in relative harmony.
It used to be an offshoot style language, like Dutch to German, or Afrikaans to Dutch.
Read some burns and it's almost unintelligible. But cultural osmosis and an effort by the various kings and prime ministers to bring the languages together made it more of an accent or a dialect than a distinct language.