This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Mohammed enters top boys' names
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 jcreedy  11 Jan 05 4.30pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 11 Jan 2005 4:26pm
Quote jcreedy at 11 Jan 2005 4:20pm
This thread should have died ages ago. Surely the best thing to do is forget it now? Who gives a toss what names are in Britain's top 20??
You can forget it if you like James, but for me it's been one of the best, most informative threads on HOL for ages!
It was my dream to play for Palace and to make my debut. I've always played for the club so if I'm playing here, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. - John Bostock (Nov 2007) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Petealiator  1066 Country! 11 Jan 05 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 11 Jan 2005 4:24pm
did anything Dr James have to say ring any bells with you, or do you reject it all as Oxbridge b*lls***? He aint really saying anything I didn't already know, or indeed believe. He's simply saying it's misleading to use the term 'Celt' or 'Celtic' because this indicates ONE people instead of the many tribes of slightly differing people they actually were. The Gauls were not the same people as the Iceni, granted, but having said that, I see the use of the term 'Celtic' as pertaining to the origins - or racial grouping if you like - of the people who populated Britain and Gaul in the dark-ages. Anyway, if the Roman scribes of the day saw fit to describe the people living on the isle of Britain – or Britannia - as 'Britons', then why shouldn't we? He also says that while the ancient Britons were of the same genetic source, ie the same race, as time advanced their division into differing tribes brought on regional and tribal cultural diversity which is pretty obvious really and no surprise at all, they still looked alike, worshipped the same pagan gods, ate the same food, told the same stories, fought the same way, celebrated the same pagan festivals. Even when England's national identity was at it's strongest (in Tudor times), healthy regional cultural diversity existed even then. But the people of England were still English first and foremost and proud of it.
My Rocksteady band... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Seth  On a pale blue dot 11 Jan 05 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jcreedy at 11 Jan 2005 4:30pm
It's just a shame when insults have to be thrown. Couldn't agree more James! As you will have read, I have repeatedly taken people to task on this thread for resorting to insults rather than reasoned debate. However, I've tried to see past the childish abuse when people have also made an interesting point, and replied to the issue rather than by returning the insult.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 11 Jan 05 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Petealiator at 11 Jan 2005 5:01pm
He aint really saying anything I didn't already know, or indeed believe. He's simply saying it's misleading to use the term 'Celt' or 'Celtic' because this indicates ONE people instead of the many tribes of slightly differing people they actually were. The Gauls were not the same people as the Iceni, granted, but having said that, I see the use of the term 'Celtic' as pertaining to the origins - or racial grouping if you like - of the people who populated Britain and Gaul in the dark-ages. Anyway, if the Roman scribes of the day saw fit to describe the people living on the isle of Britain – or Britannia - as 'Britons', then why shouldn't we? He also says that while the ancient Britons were of the same genetic source, ie the same race, as time advanced their division into differing tribes brought on regional and tribal cultural diversity which is pretty obvious really and no surprise at all, they still looked alike, worshipped the same pagan gods, ate the same food, told the same stories, fought the same way, celebrated the same pagan festivals. Even when England's national identity was at it's strongest (in Tudor times), healthy regional cultural diversity existed even then. But the people of England were still English first and foremost and proud of it.
Actually I think we probably agree on more things that we disagree on, and we're mostly debating nuances rather than fundamentals. Either way, I'll be happy to continue this civilised discussion for as long as we can both be bothered! Edited by Seth (11 Jan 2005 5:17pm)
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Petealiator 1066 Country! 11 Jan 05 5.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Well I don't really see the point coz we're just gonna go round and round in circles. If you believe that England or indeed Britain has no identifiable culture of it's own, then by the same standard you must believe also that Germany has no culture, France, Italy, India, anywhere, and if you believe that, then your definition of an identifiable national culture differs greatly from mine and that being the case; what's the point of continuing this argument? I believe England and the English way of life is under threat, you don't! I believe the English are being forced to accept many aspects of foreign culture they find alien and abhorrent, you don’t! I believe the English are worth fighting for, you don’t! I believe the English way of life is worth preserving, you don’t! End of argument.
My Rocksteady band... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Seth On a pale blue dot 11 Jan 05 6.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Petealiator at 11 Jan 2005 5:59pm
Well I don't really see the point coz we're just gonna go round and round in circles. If you believe that England or indeed Britain has no identifiable culture of it's own, then by the same standard you must believe also that Germany has no culture, France, Italy, India, anywhere, and if you believe that, then your definition of an identifiable national culture differs greatly from mine and that being the case; what's the point of continuing this argument? I believe England and the English way of life is under threat, you don't! I believe the English are being forced to accept many aspects of foreign culture they find alien and abhorrent, you don’t! I believe the English are worth fighting for, you don’t! I believe the English way of life is worth preserving, you don’t! End of argument.
For the record though, I do think England and Britain (as well as France, Italy, India etc) has a culture, which is made up of a mixture of many different influences and traditions. I just don't believe in a unified concept, apart from in a political sense. As for your last paragraph: You're right, I don't. I believe the English are worth fighting for, you don’t! I believe the English way of life is worth preserving, you don’t! You're wrong, I do.
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.