Originally Posted by 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

Yes, very good points. It is those points of continuity which should be picked up upon, together with the major figures of the pre-1066 period such as Bede, Alfred etc and woven into the narrative.

Although the Normans disposessed the Saxon nobility, they then proceeded to take Saxon wives and of course they also revered native saints such as Cuthbert and of course the 'Normanised' Edward the Confessor.

In this part of the South the pre-1066 heritage is strong (Alfred at Winchester, Canute the Dane at Southampton and Bosham etc). The challenge is to cut through the fog of legend and make these people come alive as figures integral to the continuous stream of English history.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by 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!

Please do enlighten us.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Unionist:
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.

Originally Posted by :
any one of us could just as easily have been brought up in another country

Yes but you weren't. And in any case even if you were brought up in France and thoroughly integrated with your French neighbours, you would still be regarded as an Englishman and without your identity as an Englishman you would have no identity at all. You would be like a plant without roots.

I agree that the current obsession with football is totally preposterous. If you like football, fine, but I cannot conceive what possible relationship a bunch of men kicking a ball around has to my historical identity. Maybe somebody will explain.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
Yes but you weren't. And in any case even if you were brought up in France and thoroughly integrated with your French neighbours, you would still be regarded as an Englishman and without your identity as an Englishman you would have no identity at all. You would be like a plant without roots.

I agree that the current obsession with football is totally preposterous. If you like football, fine, but I cannot conceive what possible relationship a bunch of men kicking a ball around has to my historical identity. Maybe somebody will explain.

I don't set much store by it myself, especially the commercial variant which has little to do with sport and much, much more to to do with generating income!

However, I believe the theory is that, as with cricket and rugby, football was 'invented' in England, just as Scots claim golf was invented in Scotland.

Perhaps it boils down to which particular nation devised a set of rules or regulations whereby the relevant sport was to be played out?

In any event, it could be held to be part of our history now and, as with the Anglo Saxon era, could be claimed to have some unexplained 'relevance'!

Hope this helps. :-)


_________________________
[Rep]

Originally Posted by cassie:
I don't set much store by it myself, especially the commercial variant which has little to do with sport and much, much more to to do with generating income!

However, I believe the theory is that, as with cricket and rugby, football was 'invented' in England, just as Scots claim golf was invented in Scotland.

Perhaps it boils down to which particular nation devised a set of rules or regulations whereby the relevant sport was to be played out?

In any event, it could be held to be part of our history now and, as with the Anglo Saxon era, could be claimed to have some unexplained 'relevance'!

Hope this helps. :-)


_________________________

Well there are all sorts of things that were invented in England (eg flushing WC) which are a lot more useful than Football and we are not expected to become fanatical about them.

At least the England team is made up of people who were born in this country. I have greater difficulty in grasping how people from my own city of Portsmouth identify with a group of people - mostly foreigners - who have no conection with Portsmouth whatsoever.

This policy seems to have backfired on 'English' football because few of the new stars are entitled to play for the national team. Perhaps we should be thankful. This year we have been deprived of the usual moronic spectacle of cars bedecked with plastic flags and the rest of the tatty paraphernalia of faux-patriotism that goes with the European Cup.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
Yes, very good points. It is those points of continuity which should be picked up upon, together with the major figures of the pre-1066 period such as Bede, Alfred etc and woven into the narrative.

Although the Normans disposessed the Saxon nobility, they then proceeded to take Saxon wives and of course they also revered native saints such as Cuthbert and of course the 'Normanised' Edward the Confessor.

In this part of the South the pre-1066 heritage is strong (Alfred at Winchester, Canute the Dane at Southampton and Bosham etc). The challenge is to cut through the fog of legend and make these people come alive as figures integral to the continuous stream of English history.

Really the majority of people in England like the rest of the UK are descendents from people who came here in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, we can emphasise a great deal of continuity far beyond bloody 1066 or even the coming of the Saxons. Most people have the blood of as much as 5000 years of inhabitance of this land in their veins.
[Rep]