British? No, no - they're Scots and Welsh only. And they're 'Celts' (so sayeth Alex Thomson of UK Column) - and such victims of the horrendous English. All fine tales built on ancient white race myths and Mel Gibson's 'CRY FREEDOM!' These fine Scottish and Welsh people had nothing to do with the British Empire! (I jest)
Isn't it strange how the Celtic myth is so plainly a myth, and yet it infiltrates so much of UK life? Take the UK Column - an often interesting and rather alternative (no problem there) news site. Sadly, there is heavy 'Celtic' nonsense in the organisation, brought to bear by staff like Alex Thomson.
The whole venture is rather strangely organised anyway, with a complete non-questioning of the dreadful discrimination against every living soul in the largest and most multi-ethnic 'UK' country of all - via asymmetric national devolution, the Barnett Formula, the resurgent West Lothian Question, etc - and a very heavy focus on those five million souls living in Scotland.
DNA studies have more than proved that the notion of Anglo Saxons replacing the entire population of what is now England, and a grand, unified 'Celtic' civilisation occupying the entire island before that, are bunk.
In fact, bunk originating with a Welshman in 1707, who was only talking about language similarities of Gaelic and Welsh to the supposed 'Celtic' languages.
Of course, people can still call themselves British, English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or whatever - these are far more logical creations, but what drives the Celtic myth is largely jingoism - a sense of false pride, a vilification of the largest country within the UK, an appropriating of ancient British history, a victimhood narrative, a strong sense of exclusivity, and an insistence on special treatment.
Take the vilification, for example. Alex Thomson refers (negatively) to 'Anglo American banks'. Um, the 'Anglo' thing is piffle for a start - does he mean English or British? The most appropriate word would be British as the Scots were and are into all that - as they were with the British Empire - to a disproportionate level.
The DNA studies also call into doubt the notion that the 'olde English' derived all - or even most - of their language and culture from the minute number of invaders. It opens up fascinating questions.
But the powerful Celtic myth adherents will do all they can to crush them.
As far as the likes of Alex Thomson are concerned, his ancestors were wonderful, faintly mystical, white beings, who sounded like Clannad when they sang, tossed the caber, formed male voice choirs, and made pasties. They and their 'culture' (?) survive despite centuries of victimhood. So, DNA studies disagree? Who gives a stuff? The level of cognitive dissonance in the so-called 'UK' ensures that, up to now, there's never been much of a challenge.
And all this has made a powerful contribution to a tiny elite in the UK enjoying more funding (the Barnett Formula), far better democratic representation (asymmetric national devolution) and chances to interfere in the democracy of a far larger and far more ethnically diverse country (England). Ever heard of the (about to resurge) West Lothian Question? Ever checked out the 2003 Foundation Hospitals vote for England?
Interesting article from Prospects magazine, from 2006 - illustrating just how little we actually know about the history of these islands - and just how much DNA studies can tell us. A quick look at Wikipedia will show you just how fiercely this is resisted. I include the beginning of the article here, and a link to the full original at the bottom of this post:
Myths of British Ancestry:
The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?
Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.
Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.
The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.
Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry
