cassie

--

I don't think I'm the only one still waiting to discover the relevance of Anglo-Saxon England and what it is relevant to? Couldn't spot it in the originating thread!


--

Ea of Dune

I'd certainly say that there isn't enough emphasis in the curriculum on the Anglo-Saxon period of our history.
As Andrew said it gave birth to our language, country and a lot of our institutions. I guess when you run your own history into the ground and discard it then it's to be expected, but it's still sad.

Ea of dune

Mikeuk

Yes, we are rather taught that history began in 1066.

But there was a very real break in the development of English history at that date. There's a continuous narrative since 1066 and events prior to that date don't really form part of that narrative.

Apart from a handful of small churches there few significant architectural monuments survive from that date (contrast some of the major Roman ruins which may stil be seen).

I'm sure that this fact has a bearing on the matter. It is much less easy to picture the Anglo-Saxon built environment than the later Mediaeval or even Roman equivalents.

Ea of Dune

Mike I agree we are taught that history started in 1066.
I have to say I disagree with some of what you say as I believe the whole idea of this "break" isn't as great as people would have us believe.
From an architectural point of view you are indeed most correct. The Normans certainly did speed up the progress of architectural change that was taking place in England.
However for a number of decades after the Norman invasion the ASC continued to be penned by Anglo-Saxon monks until eventually our language evolved into middle English.
The Normans absorbed the existing structures within Anglo-Saxon England are re-labelled them as counties, however a brief look at a map of England will show you that the original Anglo-Saxon structures for dividing land (as well as Anglo-Danish) still exist to this day.

There is a plethora of things which are the works of the Anglo-Saxons that without their existance modern England would be a very different place. However these things are often brushed over and ignored by the modern schooling system.

Ea of dune

Andrew Constantine

Some of the above posts confuse race and ethnicity: they mean entirely different things from a conceptual viewpoint.

An easy mistake to make - I made it myself until recently!

__________________
Andrew Constantine says: The EU is a French-German racket and is incompatible with democracy. An independent England will quit the EU forthwith.

Free England Party - Independence for England
http://www.freeengland.com

Signatory to The English Claim of Right
http://englishclaimofright.com

Internationalist

I don't really know what is so important about 'identity', especially when it involves going back to find an Anglo-Saxon identity.

Why is 'identity' an important factor - any one of us could just as easily have been brought up in another country like France, Germany, Spain or Italy, and would we be any better or worse for it? I just don't see why there is a need to cling on to some sort of national or ethnic identity, any more than there is a need to support a certain football team. It might give some people pleasure and may even seem to be the biggest thing in some people's lives, but is it really that important?

Having an Anglo-Saxon identity would add nothing to my life. I am all for learning more Anglo-Saxon history though.

cassie

What sad admission! Enshrined in our law is the means for everyone and anyone to safeguard their identity. Unfortunately, it tends to be used to preserve everyone's identity save that of the English.

Much of our English identity has been our way of going on, and our going on is not the same as elsewhere, although there may be similarities. Non-English people demand the right to their own identities, even here in England much to the detriment of our own which, by reason of your attitude, is becoming increasingly submerged.

The need to retain our identity is to avoid it being subsumed in a more intolerant identity which, if ever permitted to predominate, will treat us and ours with contempt.

Whilst the Anglo-Saxon era is part of English history, it is not necessary to look back to that for our current identity. Indeed, how many of us can trace our ancestry earlier than 1535 if as far?


-

Internationalist

Cassie, for you it is a "sad admission" because you obviously feel it is important. I don't. I'm sorry if that is distressing for you.

There are things I like about living in this country and I do believe that we need to defend our liberties.

To the extent that you feel a strong national identity, it is not my place to say you are wrong. I merely point out that I do not feel the same and see no specific reason for doing so.

cassie

It is more than national identity! Because legislation safeguards other ethnicities also, it means not only that English nationality is being suppressed and eliminated in a way that Scottish and Welsh and Irish are not, but also our culture! English customs and practices and religions are now subordinate to foreign customs etc. These foreign cultures combined with rights given to foreigners are eroding our liberties. These matters are all connected, and you make a grave mistake if you do not see that they are.

Civil unrest, largely unreported, continues in France which revolve around issues of liberty. It is only a matter of time before they become replicated over here.

Multi race - yes! Multi culture - no! One of the problems is that our race laws extend beyond race to safeguard other ethnicities and other nationalities. Such provisions do not exist in the countries from which many immigrants come and their attitudes differ, part of THEIR culture you see!


_______

cassie

This is typical of the effective suppression of all things English:

The Cross of StGeorge blog

See "Charity begins at home, but home is clearly not England!"

See also: £230. That's how much Department for Culture spent promoting St George's Day in FIVE years | Mail Online

--