"Peteybabes", another wide-ranging post which raises many points. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to respond to all of them. (I'm not ignoring the rest, it's just that - like you say when I asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assertions - I have better things to do with my time), so let's return to what appears to be your main point, which you say I've ignored, that "Britain has (and always has had) it's own unique culture".

Well Britain didn't even exist as a nation until relatively recently. Before then it was a loose collection of different tribes and kingdoms, made up of widely different peoples with their own cultures, who no doubt intermingled and fought in equal measure. I believe these groupings influenced each other and also absorbed influences from other parts of the world (not just Europe) through trade and travel.

Therefore, what we see as British culture today is the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution and change, as different peoples mingled, interbred, fought and generally did the things people do. Culture isn't static and frozen, but a continuously changing and evolving melange of language, literature, storytelling, war, traditions and many other factors. Just like language, culture never stops evolving and thats why I don't accept the concept of a permanent, static culture which is now under threat.

Britishness will continue to evolve and change as different influences are absorbed and adapted. And nowhere have I said I hate Britain or that I'm not proud of it (although I see myself as more English that British and aren't particularly fond of "The Union", but that's another argument).

I am very proud of the way we have developed from so many influences, whether they be from Europe, Africa, Asia or anywhere else. I love these islands and ALL their peoples, as long as they try to get along with each other and be tolerant of (and celebrate) their differences as well as their similarities.

It's easy for the right to say "you hate Britain, you aren't proud of your country", but that's just not true. We might be proud of different aspects of Britishness (and I acknowledge the bad as well as the good in our country) but I'm as proud of these islands and their peoples as the next bloke.

What I said about Romans was that they weren't ALL European. The Romans absorbed people from all over their empire into their armies and other areas of life, as the Severus example demonstrates. Of course I know where Rome is and I think you know I wasn't saying that it isn't in Europe. Calling me a fool doesn't give your argument any more weight in my eyes, quite the opposite in fact.

Anyway, I think it's clear we're not going to change each others' minds on this, so I suggest we agree to disagree and call a truce. Or we can carry on for the next thousand years, by which time our culture will have changed some more and we might be debating in Arabic, Mandarin, German, Spanish, IsiNdebele or Esperanto!

PS The "yeah but no but" jibe is cheap and meaningless. I don't even look like Vicky Pollard.

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Phew, bet you've both got finger ache after that short debate !

There's no sun, the shadow of the wizard.......

In reply to your points (this will never end if we both keep wanting the last word!)

I don't accept that definition of a racial group. Homo Sapiens are genetically the same species, no matter what their origins are. We can interbreed without any problem and are therefore technically one race - the Human Race.

My point is that there is no unified or unique "British" culture, but a collection of cultures and traditions which differ widely. A Londoner's culture is different to a Scottish Highlander's, which is different to a Manx, which is different to Welsh, or Black Country, or Irish, or Cornish, or East Anglian etc.

I see the Union as political, not cultural. I think the Scots, Irish etc are capable of protecting their own cultures and have done better at that then the English, possibly because they had to after generations of cultural oppression. That doesn't mean I don't respect and admire all aspects of these island's diversity, I just don't accept the idea of a "British" culture per se, because our islands have many and varied cultures continually evolving and intermingling with new influences from outside - as they have always done.

In terms of identity, I see myself as British, English, Irish, a Londoner, a South Londoner, European, and a Human. All at the same time, in no particular order.

Not sure you can write off a nation of almost 300 million people as "a wishy-washy dustbin full of people devoid of identity". Again, the USA is a mixture of cultures and influences which vary widely from place to place.

Fair enough, but I don't think that was what I was doing.

I really resent this comment. What were my "foolish statements of 'proof'"? I provided numerous links to back up my arguments and would like you to say what these "foolish" statements were. I have been very careful not to insult you, even though I disagree with you vehemently and I would appreciate similar respect in return. It's stimulating to have such debates as these, but when people suggest I'm a fool or a liar then that just disappoints me because it's childish and unneccesary as well as not being true.

I haven't sworn at you or insulted you in any way, I've tried to keep the debate civil and not resort to name calling. You have not done the same. It demeans your argument to disrespect or insult a debating opponent and I would be more willing to have more of these interesting conversations in the future if you would refrain from such tactics.

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

I believe it to be true and have seen evidence which makes it the most likely theory in my opinion. We're debating semantics here with words like "prove" and "fact", but to me (and most experts on the subject) the Out of Africa theory is currently the one most likely to be true.

see above

They key word in my sentence is "all". I was saying not ALL Romans were European.

Politically, it exists as a nation now. It is known as the UK.

That's not what my reading & viewing on the subject has taught me. Did they all call themselves Celts? Did they call Britain, "Britain"? Or are these names given since? Did they speak the same language, have the same traditions, eat the same food, worship the same gods, have the same rulers? I don't think so. To me, that means they were widely different

You might say they are foolish, others would disagree. Instead of insulting me by calling me a fool, why not just say you don't agree and offer your own views. Neither of us can prove everything we say and I have offered more evidence for my points than you. You still offer no evidence to back up your views, so I could just as well call them foolish but that proves nothing.

My views are my views and I am not a fool or a liar. I respect your opinions even though I disagree with them. It would be nice if you did the same - neither of us have a monopoly on the truth.

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

I'm not going to reply to your points because the argument is over. But I don't want you to think I agree with you, because on principle, I don't!

Actually, I'm going to do some more research about this Celts/Britons stuff because I am interested in it and I'm not convinced by what you say, especially as Celtic languages vary widely (Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish etc). However, I have an open mind and if I find you were right, I'll be honest enough to say so.

I make that a score draw!

Until the next time mate.....cheerio, it's been fun!

Edited by Seth (08 Jan 2005 6:10pm)

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Very interesting boys, I haven't understood a fcuking word!!