Anglo Saxon Speech Genocide By Brian Simpson
Here is another one attacking the past of Anglo-Saxons to serve the ideological function of deracinating them, by simply eliminating the term that once described them. This comes from an Irish academic, Mary Rambaran-Olm, who was raised in Canada.
“The term Anglo-Saxon is 'bound up with white supremacy' and should be replaced with 'early English', academics have argued.
Anglo-Saxon traditionally refers to groups from Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands who settled in Britain at the end of Roman rule.
However, early medieval England specialist Mary Rambaran-Olm, an independent scholar and author, claimed the term is used by white supremacists to refer to white British people and should be banned.
The academic – raised in Canada and now based in Ireland – says previous objections to the term Dark Ages sets a precedent.
She told The Times: 'Generally, white supremacists use the term to make some sort of connection to their heritage (which is inaccurate) or to make associations with 'whiteness' but they also habitually misuse it to try and connect themselves to a warrior past.'
Miss Rambaran-Olm said people in early England – or 'Englelond' – did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons but tended to refer to themselves as 'Englisc' or 'Anglecynn'.
The academic said the term became more popular in the 18th and 19th century and was used to link white people to their 'supposed origins'.
Hitler wrote of the 'Anglo-Saxon determination' to hold India, while imperialist Cecil Rhodes also regularly used the term.
John Overholt, curator of early books and manuscripts at Harvard's Houghton Library, backed a ban on the term.
'The term Anglo-Saxon is inextricably bound up with pseudohistorical accounts of white supremacy, and gives aid and comfort to contemporary white supremacists,' he wrote on Twitter. 'Scholars of medieval history must abandon it.'
Earlier this year the International Society of Anglo Saxonists took a poll of its 600 members, and 60 per cent of the group agreed to remove the reference to 'Anglo-Saxon' from its name.
But Tom Holland, author of books including Athelstan: The Making of England, said the term was 'inextricably bound up with the claim by Alfred ... to rule as a shared Anglian-Saxon identity'.
'Scholars must be free to use it,' he said.
In a tweet, he wrote of the idea to ditch the term Anglo-Saxon: 'Mad as a bag of ferrets, as they say in Deira [a former kingdom].'”
I am glad that there are some scholars resisting this nonsense. The mere fact that white supremacists, a term not defined by these multicult researchers, but could mean anything, including those who wish to have a White identity, just like Blacks, refer to a term does nothing to debunk it. These people also use mathematics, so should that be rejected too? Sure, some multicultists see even that as racist. And, in an age where there is the social construction of genders, giving a near infinite variety, supposed by the woke science establishment, it is not consistent to deny those who which to categorise themselves as Anglo-Saxon, and is in fact discriminatory by their own standards.
Leaving politically correct bs academia to one side, there are adequate scientific reasons, in the old school sense of science, to use the term “Anglo-Saxon,” with a recent genetic study indicating that Anglo-Saxons make up about 40 percent of English DNA:
“What does this big recent genetic study tell us about the nations of Britain? The whole island was originally populated by Britons before the arrival of the Romans.
The Anglo-Saxon impact on Britain makes up about 10 to 40 percent of English DNA. The Viking impact on the Orkney Islands was about 25 percent of Orcadian DNA and was much more limited elsewhere. The Romans appear to have had no genetic impact on Britain.
Does that mean the English, Scots and Welsh are mostly Britons of Celtic ancestry? It doesn’t appear that way. It looks like the Celts who migrated from the continent may have had a smaller impact on Britain than the Anglo-Saxons. The vast bulk of our ancestry comes from the Bell Beaker culture that expanded into Britain from Central Europe around 4,500 to 4,000 years ago and exterminated the Neolithic people who previously lived there.
The English and Danes had only diverged about 400 years before the Viking Age which makes it difficult to tell them apart. Similarly, the Britons and Anglo-Saxons had only diverged around 2,000 years before from the same group that populated Northwestern Europe.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/11/genetics-and-the-anglo-saxon-migrations/comment-page-1/
This headline sums it up, and why the woke politically correct may be disturbed by the Anglo-Saxon tribe maintaining any degree of self-identity.
““Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up.
Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.
In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.
Many people in Britain claim to feel a strong sense of regional identity and scientists say they the new study proves that the link to birthplace is DNA deep. …
Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.
“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity. …
And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Britons or wiped out communities.
The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population. …”
““The results are astonishing. They show how Britons in different parts of the country have evolved in relative isolation, for a combination of geographical, cultural, and linguistic reasons, over huge periods of time. We may think of the modern era as one of unrivalled mobility, but for much of our history Britons have proved champions at staying put.
One distinct genetic group can only be seen in what is now West Yorkshire. This is deeply puzzling. But the historians and archaeologists in our project eventually worked out that after the decline of the Roman Empire there was a Celtic Kingdom, called Elmet, exactly in this region. It seems the genetic patterns we see today have been shaped by the geopolitical landscape of millennia gone by.
Another Celtic Kingdom, Rheged, matched a genetic group in modern Cumbria. There were also separate Celtic Kingdoms at that time in North and South Wales (Gwynedd and Dyfed), where we found different genetic groups.
As for the Kingdom of Dalriada, which flourished in 550AD in what is now Northern Ireland and Western Scotland, we found a contemporary genetic group matching that, too. …”
Thus, the Oxford University research showed, migrants aside, that White British are still living in the same “tribes” they were in 600 AD:
https://theday.co.uk/stories/britons-are-still-angles-saxons-and-celts
English people are mainly of Germanic origin:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/22/britain-tribal-millennia-anglo-saxon
Thus, those who want to abolish use of the term “Anglo-Saxon” are really advocating the elimination of a people. Resist it!
Comments