Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, genetically the same.

Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
1,742
An extraordinary book called "A Book Around the Irish Sea History without Nations", by David Brett tells of the history of the Irish Sea over thousands of years.

The Irish Sea has been treated more like a lake, interlocking the people who used the sea for trading, to settle, create families and build alliances.

The most extraordinary claim by David Brett is that although wars were fought to control the Irish Sea, this was never seen as different nations fighting for their "national interests". It was only in the 19th century that ideas of nationalism, and of different peoples who were unique and separate took place!

Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people. In England the Saxons were seen as invaders from across the North Sea who pushed out the original Britons. In fact, DNA technigques show that the genetic make-up of the vast majority of people in the British Isles is the same, and it is identical to that found in the remains of people who settled here 8,000 years ago.

Amazing book. What now for all those engaged in nationalist politics and war-fare. Its all a big mistake??
 


devnull

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,833
Maybe it's time for the English to admit the folly of independence and submit to our rule?
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Sounds like a narrative to support a political objective of British-Irish unity (under British domination, naturally).

The most extraordinary claim by David Brett is that although wars were fought to control the Irish Sea, this was never seen as different nations fighting for their "national interests". It was only in the 19th century that ideas of nationalism, and of different peoples who were unique and separate took place!
The 12thC English, the 16th and 17th Century English/British regarded the Irish as little more than vermin and treated them as such - has the author even heard of the plantations - does he think they had no effect on Irish nationalist thinking (ie Brits out, we would be better off ruling our own affairs)? Ultra revisionist nonsense, even Shakespeare wrote....

"This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,—
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

Red Hugh O'Donnell's men sang the song Roisin Dubh which had lyrics picturing Ireland as a woman and they were fighting for her honour - national identity and a consciousness about differences between tribes, nations etc is as old as the hills, this idea of national identity being a 19thC invention is one of the least intelligent revisionist larks to ever emerge - surprising there are so many who still use it.

Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people. In England the Saxons were seen as invaders from across the North Sea who pushed out the original Britons.
Except the Saxon invasion is a historical truth, the firbolg/Tuatha etc is mythological - is he even aware of this? He should read what the legends say of these Irish mythological peoples, one eyed giants who can kill with a glance, a magical cauldron, a Goddess who can turn into a crow etc etc.

In fact, DNA technigques show that the genetic make-up of the vast majority of people in the British Isles is the same, and it is identical to that found in the remains of people who settled here 8,000 years ago.
It's not the same though - there may be some early stong age commonality (which is also shared with other peoples like the Basques - why not expand his theory to say... 'Peoples of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Basque country are the same') but that's so long ago as to be virtually meaningless - aren't these geneticists also only looking at specific genes as opposed to entire genomes? I reckon i can spot an Irish person standing among a group of English on sight alone.
 
Last edited:

18 Brumaire

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
474
Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people.
The authors of Lebor Gabála Érenn must have been rabid nationalists. Spent their whole time reading Tone, Emmett, Davis and Pearse I suppose.
 
G

Gadjodilo

What now for all those engaged in nationalist politics and war-fare. Its all a big mistake??
Nations are about so much more than just genes. There is language (hence culture), economics, religion and geographical barriers for starters.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Nonsense. If you take 60 million people, you have a distorted sample because the English are 50 million of them. DNA evidence contradicts this thesis. For example, the TCD study referred to on "Blood of the Irish" noticed a higher instance of native (first inhabitants of Ireland from 11,000 years ago -489,000 years after Britain) DNA among those with Gaelic surnames (and even among smaller majorities (62-83-52) of thoser with supposedly English/Norman/Scottish surnames because of Anglicisation of their names and inter-marriage).

Furthermore,DNA evidence on BBC's "Blood of the Vikings" series (findings should still be on web) found DNA evidence that the native pre-Saxon British in England were in places 95% exterminated by the Saxons. Also, most English DNA was Germanic (including Scandinavian). Such distinctions couldn't have been made were there not genetic, ethnic differences. Beware of political-historians who might have agendas.
 
Last edited:

Panopticon

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
5,575
0. We can't really say much about the DNA evidence without having the book in front of us. So let's assume that the results are solid and that the difference between Irish and Welsh/English etc is less than that between us and other Europeans. So not everyone needs to be genetically identical for British and Irish people to be genetically similar. It's a ridiculous proposition anyway; how do you convince a nationalist that we are sufficiently similar without being twins? He will just not believe you for his own purposes. So maybe we should believe what the author is saying about DNA rather than the internet writers.
1. It's not extraordinary to say that nationalism was a 19th century invention. It certainly was. 1798 was a republican uprising similar to that in the United States.
2. But liberalism is an 18th century invention, fascism a 20th century invention. There's no reason why one can't take a political stance based on an invented ideology, since all of them were. So why do nationalists claim that nationalism is old? The difference is that liberalism is rational whereas nationalism is romantic, so the rhetoric of nationalism requires the assertion of a nation throughout time to instil emotion and to subvert reason. Think of Greece's claim on the Parthenon marbles, which makes no sense from a (rational) property rights standpoint, but which has a powerful (romantic) emotive appeal.
3. Since Irish nationalism is founded on religion and language, it doesn't need an ethnic basis beyond "our families versus their families". In fact, religion and language are pretty much all you need for nationalism. America does quite well with Christianity and English without needing everyone to look the same.
4. The only remaining nationalist "warfare" around here is being practised by a tiny number of people in Northern Ireland, mostly people who won't be convinced by a book that goes against their beliefs.
5. British-Irish unity is hardly a relevant "political objective" any more of any party bar the BNP and Joe Higgins's Socialists.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
Nonsense. If you take 60 million people, you have a distorted sample because the English are 50 million of them. DNA evidence contradicts this thesis. For example, the TCD study referred to on "Blood of the Irish" noticed a higher instance of native (first inhabitants of Ireland from 11,000 years ago -489,000 years after Britain) DNA among those with Gaelic surnames (and even among smaller majorities (62-83-52) of thoser with supposedly English/Norman/Scottish surnames because of Anglicisation of their names and inter-marriage).
Still the people are substantially the same. The prevalence of the R1b (Basque) Y-chromosome marker is still, even in the most 'English' part of Eastern England (around Norfolk and Suffolk) the majority, still 70% plus. The highest incidence is actually in a small place in Wales.

Furthermore,DNA evidence on BBC's "Blood of the Vikings" series (findings should still be on web) found DNA evidence that the native pre-Saxon British in England were in places 95% exterminated by the Saxons. Also, most English DNA was Germanic (including Scandinavian). Such distinctions couldn't have been made were there not genetic, ethnic differences. Beware of political-historians who might have agendas.
This is just made up. There was no Anglo-Saxon 'wipe-out', just as there was no Celtic one here. The people of England are nearly entirely the descendents, with some additional infusion from various immigrant groups, of the Stone Age inhabitants who arrived there (like here) after the Last Glacial Maximum. There was no extermination, at least wide-scale, no 'replacement', and their DNA is not 'Germanic', it's majority R1b even in the Danelaw part.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
You are just latching on to one part of the DNA signature toxic-avenger.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
I reckon i can spot an Irish person standing among a group of English on sight alone.
I'm from as Gaelic, rural, isolated, Atlantic coast West and North of Ireland almost as is possible. My family on both sides were Irish-speaking up until the last century. There are not even Protestants where both my parents grew up. I look like a southern Spaniard or Italian. No-one would think I was Irish in a million years (one person at UCC got upset with me because he thought I was taking the mickey when I insisted my background was entirely north-west Ireland). I know many people like me from the west of Ireland. Gráinne Seoige looks like an Italian.

How does that fit?
 

Ah Well

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,228
Don't all humans have a common ancestor - some bucko from Africa originally?

Time for a group hug :p
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
An extraordinary book called "A Book Around the Irish Sea History without Nations", by David Brett tells of the history of the Irish Sea over thousands of years.

The Irish Sea has been treated more like a lake, interlocking the people who used the sea for trading, to settle, create families and build alliances.

The most extraordinary claim by David Brett is that although wars were fought to control the Irish Sea, this was never seen as different nations fighting for their "national interests". It was only in the 19th century that ideas of nationalism, and of different peoples who were unique and separate took place!

Nationalism gave rise to historical myths about "invaders" in different parts of the islands. In Ireland invaders from the Fir Bolg to the Celts were said to have come in and displaced the earlier people. In England the Saxons were seen as invaders from across the North Sea who pushed out the original Britons. In fact, DNA technigques show that the genetic make-up of the vast majority of people in the British Isles is the same, and it is identical to that found in the remains of people who settled here 8,000 years ago.

Amazing book. What now for all those engaged in nationalist politics and war-fare. Its all a big mistake??
While it's true that the modern concept of the nation-state is a 19th century invention, Irish nationhood itself is not a new invention, but rather an awareness of the concept of Ireland and Irishness can be seen even in Gaelic poetry of the bardic era. Similarly, a concept of England and Englishness stretches back into the middle ages. Again, there is overlap with royal and feudal ties in terms of loyalty and so on, but the concept of 'national interests' can be clearly seen long before the 19th Century (the Nine Years War would be a good example).
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,580
what about words like gael and gall or beyond the pale. do they not hint that before the 19th century people had a concept of difference. different legal systems even languages.

the two islands are right beside each other it would make scence that there has been population movemets between each since day one for a veriety of different reasons. not a huge surpise that people would geneticly similar but bit of a leap to say that cultural differences were contructed in the 19th century of the back of that.
 

Ah Well

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,228
You all do. I was created by God separately. The idea of me being related to any of you unwashed peasants both amuses and repulses me....
heh ... have it your way then :p

Haplogroup R1B is dominant in far western Europe. This Map shows it somewhat



Having done a basic genealogy DNA test some time ago I got the result R1B M343 myself - which would be the same as a lot of folk round these parts. The interesting part would be of course to go beyond that and get Subgroup results, such as S168 and S169, which I'll do one of these days ...

S168 defines a subgroup which originated in Ireland over 1000 years ago and is particularly common in the southwest of the country, for example in Counties Clare, Tipperary, Limerick and Cork. It has been seen in Scotland and England, but much more rarely. It has been suggested that this type marks descent from the DalCassian clans, the descendants of Cormac Cas. Most prominent amongst these are the O’Briens, the descendants of Brian Boru, the famous High King of Ireland.

S169 defines a different subgroup which is also over 1000 years old and appears to originate in Ireland, but this time concentrated in Leinster in the east of the country, particularly the neighbouring counties of Wicklow, Kildare and Wexford. It is also found in Scotland and England at lower frequencies, mostly around the Irish Sea. In some cases it may indicate descent from the chieftains of the Lagin in Ireland.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
heh ... have it your way then :p


Having done a basic genealogy DNA test some time ago I got the result R1B M343 myself - which would be the same as a lot of folk round these parts. The interesting part would be of course to go beyond that and get Subgroup results, such as S168 and S169, which I'll do one of these days ...

S168 defines a subgroup which originated in Ireland over 1000 years ago and is particularly common in the southwest of the country, for example in Counties Clare, Tipperary, Limerick and Cork. It has been seen in Scotland and England, but much more rarely. It has been suggested that this type marks descent from the DalCassian clans, the descendants of Cormac Cas. Most prominent amongst these are the O’Briens, the descendants of Brian Boru, the famous High King of Ireland.

S169 defines a different subgroup which is also over 1000 years old and appears to originate in Ireland, but this time concentrated in Leinster in the east of the country, particularly the neighbouring counties of Wicklow, Kildare and Wexford. It is also found in Scotland and England at lower frequencies, mostly around the Irish Sea. In some cases it may indicate descent from the chieftains of the Lagin in Ireland.
I did the Y-chromosome one too, just out of curiosity, I came back as E3b. Apparently I'm a descendent of the original pre-Gaelic first inhabitants in Ireland, but one of the 2% of those who were later Gaelicised and ended up with Gaelic surnames who weren't R1b. So even my ancestors arriving to find the glaciers melting were special and rare.

It would tie in, weirdly, with local legend in North Sligo that one of the very first settlements in Ireland was a Greek trading/fishing one (E3b being quite common there)...
 

Ah Well

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
1,228
I did the Y-chromosome one too, just out of curiosity, I came back as E3b. Apparently I'm a descendent of the original pre-Gaelic first inhabitants in Ireland, but one of the 2% of those who were later Gaelicised and ended up with Gaelic surnames who weren't R1b. So even my ancestors arriving to find the glaciers melting were special and rare.

It would tie in, weirdly, with local legend in North Sligo that one of the very first settlements in Ireland was a Greek trading/fishing one (E3b being quite common there)...
The genetics side of it is fascinating really and I think invaluable if one is seriously interested in genealogy to compliment the documentary/other resources

Re my own family name, some claim it's an offshoot of a long established Irish clan, others suggest they arrived into the country some number of centuries ago from France ... a detailed DNA test might well put paid to one or other of those theories I think - a S168/169 result would make it long time Irish
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
18,709
The genetics side of it is fascinating really and I think invaluable if one is seriously interested in genealogy.

Re my own family name, some claim it's an offshoot of a long established Irish clan, others suggest they arrived into the country some number of centuries ago from France ... a detailed DNA test might well put paid to one or other of those theories I think - a S168/169 result would make it original Irish
It doesn't matter a whit, of course. My background might be as Gaelic as they come, but then I speak with a London accent and am culturally a mess of English, Irish, and whatever is on telly. The idea of me telling a Dub that I'm probably more 'Irish' than them in a fairly strong London accent would be quite a ridiculous sight to behold. Or more Irish than de Valera and Pearse. Or Phil Lynott. It's nonsense of course.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top