Good News, the Moslims saved England!

It's true. The English didn't beat the Spanish Armada, it was the Muslims that did it! 'Clever' Trevor Philips says so, so it must be true. What a pillock.

Quote:

---

"And if there is a practical thing, I would say it is that we need to revisit some parts of that national heritage. to rewrite some parts of that national story to tell the whole story.

"When we talk about the Armada it's only now that we are beginning to realise that part of it is Muslims," Mr Phillips told the meeting.

"It was the Turks who saved us, because they held up Armada at the request of Elizabeth I.

"Now let's rewrite that story, let's use our heritage to rewrite that story so it is truly inclusive.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7012698.stm

Anything to promote the [failed] multicultural agenda. It's only been within my lifetime that significant numbers of non-white immigrants have come to the UK. Still never let the truth get in the way of political correctness eh?

Battle of Lepanto.

Sounds like a fundamentalistic multicultist to me. So now it has gone so far that revisionism is needed to press the agenda. We had something similar, to prevent young rascals from playing football with flowers at memorialday they invented marrocan soldiers liberating us in WWII. Relics from the eighties, a period of absolute faith where missing a days prayer was enough to be labeled a heretic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I sincerely hope this idiot is joking.

Rewrite history?

So some gits who refuse to integrate themselves into our society feel more included?

:daisy: off, Mr Phillips.

Quote:

---

It was the Turks who saved us, because they held up Armada at the request of Elizabeth I

---

Well, they didn't do a very good job then, did they, since it turned up in the channel just the same?

I wonder if Trevor Philips will be reminding us of muslim slave raiders attacking the Devon and Cornish coast?

Ah, what's the point arguing with a moron? History is bunk. It's rather like those glib comments "we are all immigrants" (...so don't worry your little heads about immigration). Yes we are, but:

(1) The arrival of Anglo Saxon warriors in the 5th century AD* is probably not very informative when it comes to the arrival of immigrants into a 21C welfare state, and

(2) in any case the native population could be forgiven for regretting the arrival of the Anglo Saxons, since we killed them and took their land.

Frankly if Trevor Philips thinks a load of Turkish builders sailed over and built St Paul's cathedral it would not affect how I feel about anything today.

* thank you Azi, typo corrected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Well, they didn't do a very good job then, did they, since it turned up in the channel just the same?

---

LOL that makes it even sweeter :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

ES MUSS SEIN!!!!

radicalising :yes:

Quote:

---

Rewrite history?

So some gits who refuse to integrate themselves into our society feel more included?

---

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

---

The problem is that it isn't being ignored, it simply isn't true. What next? The Chinese helped Robert the Bruce regain his throne from the English? Or Owen Gyndower was secretly a Hindu? Utter codswallop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well inclusion sounds far better to me than having their contribution ignored. History has been written about the Upper Classes and Politics, etc for far too long and as such the fundamental humanity behind it has been ignored.

---

What's the point of including them and their imaginary contribution when they refuse to try and integrate?

How are they meant to function in our wildly different society when they insist on bringing their way of life here?

Either live with and tolerate our way of life and integrate into our society, or bugger off back to DurkaDurkastan or wherever you come from so you can go back to your cultured and superior society of abusing women and blowing up people.

Dunno about the Armada, but I did hear an interesting story about King John. He approached the Moors and offered to convert to Islam in an effort to buy their support for his failing rule in England. The version I heard said the Moorish king chastised him for being such an insincere opportunist.

Quote:

---

The problem is that it isn't being ignored, it simply isn't true. What next? The Chinese helped Robert the Bruce regain his throne from the English? Or Owen Gyndower was secretly a Hindu? Utter codswallop.

---

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

@MC - You are trying to drag this off on a tangent that is both irrelevant and pointless. Contribution to current society (or lack thereof as you percieve it) should not make any difference. I don't think the Normans have contributed much these days... but they are remembered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

I'd like to think that your kidding, sadly I suspect you're not.

@ econ 21

Yeah I heard about that as well. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

(1) The arrival of Anglo Saxon warriors in the 5th century BC is probably not very informative when it comes to the arrival of immigrants into a 21C welfare state, and

---

BC? Didn't they paddle across the European version of the Rio Grande in the 5th C. AD?

Anyway, that was one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while. I still want to know how the Moslems held up the Spanish Armada.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

We can only guess about his motives for lying the way he does. If you want to rebuild a culture you have to break it down first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'd like to think that your kidding, sadly I suspect you're not.

---

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

Post-modern contructivism might be a better theory to evaluate what is happening here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

---

So history is a theory now eh? So it's only a matter of time before political meddling is taught as fact. It seems the education system in the UK isn't the only one going down the bog.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Post-modern contructivism might be a better theory to evaluate what is happening here.

---

Yeah but describing the sub sets of them is quite difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Yeah but describing the sub sets of them is quite difficult.

---

It's rather broad but it all comes down to social enginering basicly. But we are not the players here, we are being played.

:fishing:

What I'd like to see is the actual arguments the man makes for the Turks having held up the Armada - 'cause by what I know of the naval warfare of the period, the Spanish Atlantic sailing-ship fleet (which was the one used for the Armada) was a whole different arm from the Mediterranean galley fleet. AFAIK the only overlap were the two galeasses (a type of large, heavy galley designed more as a floating gun tower than for frontal attack as normal) taken with the Armada, which thanks to their ability to maneuver independent of the wind under oars gave the English some problems.

Don't be such a spoilsport. You can't let a little thing such as a fact get in the way of 'celebrating our diversity'. Are you a fascist? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you prove they didn't do this? Were you there? History is, at best, guess work.

---

Yes, but why stop there? I say we take this to its full postmodern consequence! All knowledge is accumulated for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious, nationalistic bias that all people have.
So let's focus on the more pressing, overarching question here: can we even be sure that Turkey exists? I mean, have you been there? I haven't either. So any conclusions as to the actual existence of Turkey is, at best, guess work. I am going to take a course in geography next semester, and I have learned this much already. :2thumbsup:
____

Leaving postmodernist thought out of it, it is true that the Ottoman empire was a major adversary to the Hapsburg ambition of hegemony in the 16th century. I assume England and the Ottomans were allies of some sort.
Come to think of it, so were France and England. I say it was us who saved England, by waging incessant war against Hapsburg. I mean, if we didn't refuse Spain passage trough France by the shedding of our own blood, they wouldn't have needed that Armada to sail all the way from Spain in the first place. France saved England, much more so than the Turks.

Hence I demand England renames Trafalgar square into Place de la France, that all British schoolchildren will be taught that France gave them their freedom, that the 14th of July becomes a British national holiday, and that Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission, the goal of which is to double Britains annual CAP contribution by way of settling Britains old debt to their cross-channel saviours.

Actually, lets break this down.

Traditional version:

Sir Francis Drake beat the Spanish bloody because he was so brilliant an Admiral.

Trever Philips version:

The Turks aquienced to Elizabeth I request to delay the Armarda long enough for the English fleet to gather so that they could beat the Spanish bloody.

So the Turks did what the English monarch asked them to do, probably because they didn't want the Spanish Navy to become any more powerful.

It's a fairly minor change really and we still di all the fighting.

It's like saying the Navy won the Battle of Britain because even if Hitler had won the Air War his still wouldn't have been able to execute a landing.

Damn you Louis VI the Fat, damn you to hell! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

can we even be sure that Turkey exists? I mean, have you been there? I haven't either. So any conclusions as to the actual existence of Turkey is, at best, guess work.

---

I've been somewhere that claimed to be Turkey, but now you mention it everyone there was a white working class English person. I've seen more Turks in Haringey. Maybe the plane flew in circles for three hours and then landed at Margate?

Quote:

---

Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission

---

This would probably be an improvement.

This thread piqued my intrest soely due to the posters within and my personal value attached to thier cred.

I am posting because I am intrested in the immigration dynamics of the EU, and find it curious that what seemed to be sacred european historical events are up for revision.

Is the example from InsaneApache an isolated incident or is this becoming a trend in the EU?

In the states there are a growing number of us watching with curiosity as to how the multicultural dynamic evolves. There is a misconception in the states (inncorrectly perhaps?) that europeans are deeply national. I havent been there since 98 (yes I was in france with a german and an englishmen when they won the world cup, oh the joy...), things have changed a bit in 10 years eh?

Right... the approach recommended by Philips has nothing to do with history or facts, it has to do with political needs and twisting facts so people who don't feel British can do so. Supposedly. If I were an immigrant targeted by Philips' drive for 'equality' I'd be rather offended to be lumped together with the Turks along with all other non-European ethnicities, as if I should feel more included in British society by what a completely unrelated people did hundreds of years ago. That approach is inherently racist by seeing as one large otherness the culturally, racially and historically distinct immigrants who have settled in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Indeed I am not. Ironic considering I am hopefully going to be doing a History course at University... Basically the idea is called the Post-modernist Theory of History. Basically, everything is written for a reason and filtered through a sub-conscious bias that all people have. This leads to exclusion and concentrating on many, generally more Nationalist, lines of thought.

---

Very basically indeed. The idea has evolved way beyond what you depict it as, and crucial aspects have been adapted by many historians who recognise their worth. The version you present is outdated, generally considered counter-productive to actually doing the best we can in uncovering history, and quite frankly has no relevance at all regarding this particular topic.

Quote:

---

There is a misconception in the states (inncorrectly perhaps?) that europeans are deeply national

---

I think it may be truer to say we (well, the English, I can'rt speak for the rest) are not strongly European rather than that we are strongly nationalist. I would identify myself as a Londoner, a biker, middle class, English, capitalist, and probably a few other things besides, before being "British". So if I had to pick sides between a Berliner (ie fellow big city dweller) who rode a motorcycle and a Scot who lived on a farm I'd go with the Berliner.

Although my feeling is that sadly people are becoming more nationalistic in Europe, yes.

Quote:

---

Is the example from InsaneApache an isolated incident or is this becoming a trend in the EU?

---

Its a trend. You can get over excited about it. I saw a very good production of Henry V a few years back, with a black actor as Henry, and it didn't register with me at all. Why shouldn't a black person play Henry V. (He was good, too.) So that's at one end of the spectrum. At the other end is an approach to history that demands that, eg, we find out that there were black people or women aboard Nelson's ships at Trafalgar, as if the battle somehow lacks meaning unless it was suitably multiethnic. There's a lot of that going on now too.

In a similar trend I've been noticing in my coursebooks written in the US, there's a disproportionate emphasis on the role of women in history, and to a lesser degree of obtrusiveness what kind of racial policies were followed, in almost any era. I'm starting to wonder if this is an exception or a rule when it comes to history coursebooks in the States

“Hence I demand England renames Trafalgar square into Place de la France, that all British schoolchildren will be taught that France gave them their freedom, that the 14th of July becomes a British national holiday, and that Mr Phillips seizes his trivial activities and becomes head of a new 'thank you France' commission, the goal of which is to double Britains annual CAP contribution by way of settling Britains old debt to their cross-channel saviours.” AND they do apologise for having burn Joan of Arc…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

AND they do apologise for having burn Joan of Arc…

---

Please try to keep up. :no:

Joan of Arc wasn't killed by the English, that is just history filtered through a sub-conscious, nationalistic bias. :smash:

"a new book has sparked anger among historians by claiming the Maid of Orléans was not an illiterate peasant but a royal. She did not hear voices and was not burned at the stake, but escaped with the help of English soldiers and went on to live a happily married life."

"She spoke English and it was the English who saved her from the stake," Gay told the Guardian. "Everything we were taught at school was wrong."

French medievalists this week rubbished the book, saying it rehashed discredited ideas to satisfy the booming audience of conspiracy theorists intent on dismantling the Jeanne d'Arc story. The publisher said the work fitted the trend for Da Vinci Code-style investigations debunking official history.
"

Link.
I say we make this book obligatory reading at all French schools, to aid in the making of a new, inclusive, pan-European and post-national identity. :2thumbsup:

Oh come on! Everybody knows it was Tibetan Monks that did for looney Joan.

Do try and keep up Louis. :whip: :beam:

Somebody sign this Trevor fellow up with an account.

I want to see him post this one in the monastery and defend it against Kraxis and the other lads there.....:evilgrin:

For what it's worth (regarding the OP), AFAIK pretty much everyone with an axe to grind with the Habsburgs had an alliance with the Ottomans at some point. Having them there at the flank of Austria-Hungary was just too useful. And the Ottomans could conversely use the portage in western Med.

Not to be outdone, the Habsburgs then went and tended to ally with the Persians to keep the Ottmans' flank busy... :beam:

And AFAIK the English didn't beat the Armada because they had genius admirals or something (one claim I've seen was that they had superior bronze cannon...). It was just equipement. The English ships were on the average faster and more maneuverable, and most importantly their guns were set in the then novel naval carriage (you know, the box-like thing with four small wheels). The Spanish guns were still stuck in the old land-artillery carriages (long trail, two wheels etc.), which were quite ill suited for shipboard use and made the guns bloody slow to reload to the considerable delight of their more firepower-oriented opponents (the Spanish preferred boarding tactics).

[/history lesson]

And yeah, pointless revisionism sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And AFAIK the English didn't beat the Armada because they had genius admirals or something (one claim I've seen was that they had superior bronze cannon...). It was just equipement. The English ships were on the average faster and more maneuverable, and most importantly their guns were set in the then novel naval carriage (you know, the box-like thing with four small wheels). The Spanish guns were still stuck in the old land-artillery carriages (long trail, two wheels etc.), which were quite ill suited for shipboard use and made the guns bloody slow to reload to the considerable delight of their more firepower-oriented opponents (the Spanish preferred boarding tactics).

[/history lesson]

And yeah, pointless revisionism sucks.

---

Indeed. We (English) won the battle more through luck than judgement. The fireships at Gravesland (sp) was about the only real contribution in the battle. Let's face it Drake was off plundering again, once a pirate......:shame:

Well, it was a growth industry in southern England at the time. To the man's credit in the context he did mostly plague the Spanish (if only for the same reason as everyone else - they had the most to steal on the waves), and I understand him or another big-name privateer actually managed to stall the whole Armada thing a bit with a daring raid into some port where the ships were being massed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

For what it's worth (regarding the OP), AFAIK pretty much everyone with an axe to grind with the Habsburgs had an alliance with the Ottomans at some point. Having them there at the flank of Austria-Hungary was just too useful. And the Ottomans could conversely use the portage in western Med.

---

Which, considering the Habsburgs massive amounts of territory and thus borders, was pretty much everyone really.

Yup. The French were the big one though, being sandwiched between Spain, the Holy Roman Empire and Spanish territories in both Northern Italy and the Netherlands. Dunno about the Polish; they were probably mostly too busy fending off the Russians and other annoyances.

So, what happened to the English sailors after they saved Elizabeth I and England from the Armada? :thumbsdown: or :2thumbsup:

Wouldn't they just have gone about their business as before ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So, what happened to the English sailors after they saved Elizabeth I and England from the Armada? :thumbsdown: or :2thumbsup:

---

I heard they were confined to their ships in port over a pay dispute or some such. I think quite a few died of malnutrition or disease. Pretty shabby treatment of the armed forces - InsaneApache will no doubt blame the Labour government of the time. ~;)

What an idiot.

History should not be the tool of propaganda and social engineering. Sadly it has been so since the beginning of, well, history.

Curse you Herodotus.

May be the Turks had a role or may be they don't: If the mighty Ottoman Empire truly did gear up for an apparent war with Spain I can see Philip delaying the Armada; even if the Atlantic fleet and the Mediterranean galley fleet are separate, fighting the Ottomans would require much of Spain's manpower anyway: manpower needed to wrestle England from Elizabeth once the Spanish landed. But as far as I know, which is little, there's no such serious attempts.

Any major event in history is necessarily complex, yet by human limitations most would only come to recognize the most significant factors in play, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

It however has nothing to do with attempting to integrate immigrants into 21th century Great Britain. I would be sincerely offended, and I'm not that easily offended, if suddenly the citizens of the U.S.A. decide that I must be placated in such a blatant manner lest I start planting bombs in white people's homes. :wall:

Nothing says "second-class" like an elaborate display of bread and circus.

i'm fairly sure the turks had their own reasons for fighting lepanto.

The whole point of the Armada was to cover the shipping of the veteran Army of Netherlands across the Channel; as AFAIK the manpower requirements of the Atlantic and Mediterranean navies were pretty much entirely different (except that the soldiers used in the boarding actions, being simply infantry aboard ships, was interchangeable), I can't really see the Lepanto campaign and the other galley scuffles having all that much an effect on the matter.
Doubly so as Spanish war galleys were rowed by convicts and slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I heard they were confined to their ships in port over a pay dispute or some such. I think quite a few died of malnutrition or disease. Pretty shabby treatment of the armed forces - InsaneApache will no doubt blame the Labour government of the time.

---

Huh, sounds like the fine traditions of the Royal Navy - "scurvy, sodomy and the lash" as Churchill put it - were already well established... :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I heard they were confined to their ships in port over a pay dispute or some such. I think quite a few died of malnutrition or disease. Pretty shabby treatment of the armed forces - InsaneApache will no doubt blame the Labour government of the time. ~;)

---

I'd love to, unfortunately the Scottish Cabal wouldn't have got a look in under Elizabeth I. :laugh4:

Revisionist history? Utter small-round-things, as referred to by the Sex Pistols' first album....

Far from fostering a spirit of inclusiveness, shouldn't the whole Armada experience remind us instead what a bunch of devious double-dealing traitorous haggis-munchers the Scots are, and wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to get Unified with them? And why didn't we stamp out the treasonous Catholics when we had the chance? Obviously the Protestant Wind was a clear sign that we should tolerate no other faiths on our hallowed isle! Hmm...? :inquisitive: [/ totally inappropriate sarcasm]

Gah - politics should listen to history, not rewrite what it doesn't like :wall:

“Joan of Arc wasn't killed by the English, that is just history filtered through a sub-conscious, nationalistic bias”
Thanks for the link. :laugh4:
But it is all rubbish. Joan of Arc was the natural daughter of the Duke of Lorraine and Isabelle Romée de Vouthon. O she was raised in a farm like always in this case, but got nice education for young female in the middle-ages, strategy, tactic, guerrilla warfare, foreign languages, modern literature (Roman de Renart, Eloise and Abelard, etc), chivalry code for demoiselle. She married Gilles Laval, Baron de Rais, Marechal de France but had few affairs with Dunnois d’Alencon and La Hire. So, she divorced him with the consequences we know for him…
Recognised when leaving an estaminet by some gazetiers, she tried to escape by coach but was followed by them. Her coach slide on the mud and hit a tree.
The Engravers draw some pictures but could have they done? The surgeon was slaughtering a pig (butchers were surgeons for the reason that they had at least a vague idea how internal organs work. Pigs and Humans have similarities in skeleton). She was then dispatched to the emergency unit of the English Stabilisation Forces in France (ESFF) and was treated by the Pr. Cochon, renowned ecclesiastic. He didn’t succeed to save Joan, but, in acknowledgement France give a hospital his name. Unfortunately, the scribe did make a spelling mistake and it became the Hospital Cochin in Paris…

You missed out the Tibetan Monks.

The flying Tibetan Monks. Farting fire. Let's be historically accurate here. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The surgeon was slaughtering a pig (butchers were surgeons for the reason that they had at least a vague idea how internal organs work. Pigs and Humans have similarities in skeleton). She was then dispatched to the emergency unit of the English Stabilisation Forces in France (ESFF) and was treated by the Pr. Cochon, renowned ecclesiastic. He didn’t succeed to save Joan, but, in acknowledgement France give a hospital his name. Unfortunately, the scribe did make a spelling mistake and it became the Hospital Cochin in Paris…

---

Nonono! the hôpital Cochin DID start out as l'hôpital Cochon. That's because it was build on the site of an ancient pig butchery.
Now all those Muslim Ottomans had to refuse being treated there, and had to return home. It was part of the plan to get rid of the Ottoman expeditionary force, the one that sailed from Normandy to stop the Armada. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Were you there?

---

If you are planning on going into history, I would forever strike this rhetorical question from your mind. It contributes nothing to discussion, stalls productive debate, and shows that you have no relevant counterargument to offer.

Ajax

Yeah I know, its just always funny to add it into an Internet discussion and to see what comes from it.

Mostly episodes like the Armada show how much of history is down to sheer luck. Oh look, a storm....and the nation is saved. Or at least the monarchy and the Church is. At least it meant the proles didn't have to learn Spanish to talk to their landlord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Mostly episodes like the Armada show how much of history is down to sheer luck. Oh look, a storm....and the nation is saved. Or at least the monarchy and the Church is. At least it meant the proles didn't have to learn Spanish to talk to their landlord.

---

Historical events may be down to luck or skill, frequently in fact, but history as such? Whether the Armada really was such a threat, if a Spanish victory would have had significant consequences, whether England was saved from certain destruction... all very open matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

At least it meant the proles didn't have to learn Spanish to talk to their landlord.

---

Actually, I don't think the peasants and the landlords in general talked too much to each other anywhere. The lords tended to have assorted "middle management" types handle such trivialities, and the commoners usually picked a sort of representative among themselves to handle that part (ie. someone reasonably fluent in the language and with the acument and legal knowledge to make decent arguments).

A once proud nation sacrificing its history and heritage in a futile attempt to appease the muslims... disgusting.

At least this man is rather isolated in his opinions... at least from the sound of those on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

A once proud nation sacrificing its history and heritage in a futile attempt to appease the muslims... disgusting.

At least this man is rather isolated in his opinions... at least from the sound of those on this board.

---

Your two statements contradict each other.

@ Watchman: The estate managers, whatever their title, would not be nobility. In many cases they would likely have been the same guys are before the invasion. So yes, the proles would have to learn Spanish. Or maybe revert back to Latin in the case of those working for the Church.

@ Geoffrey: History is much more vague than most people think and nothing is written in stone. Historians fill in the gaps as best they can and, yes, they make guesses at what might have been. Some of these guesses are educated, others are not.

The former was aimed towards the idea, the latter toward the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

At least this man is rather isolated in his opinions... at least from the sound of those on this board.

---

Which pleases me. It is good to see that the cult is losing ground, naming and shaming used to be enough, people now say yeah right and don't care to be labeled by the elite. Elite gets hysteric and start lying, even the cultural genetic make-up has to go in favour of their ideals and people are starting to notice.

good, one step closer to equal treatment for all.

That article is utter diatribe. Rubbish and crap to blow away all other rubbish and crap.

And I was under the impression that it was the Irish/Scottish coast that inflicted most of the damage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It's true. The English didn't beat the Spanish Armada, it was the Muslims that did it! 'Clever' Trevor Philips says so, so it must be true. What a pillock.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7012698.stm

Anything to promote the [failed] multicultural agenda. It's only been within my lifetime that significant numbers of non-white immigrants have come to the UK. Still never let the truth get in the way of political correctness eh?

Battle of Lepanto.

---

I dont think the Turks would have ANY intrust in defending us, nor would they reach in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

@ Watchman: The estate managers, whatever their title, would not be nobility. In many cases they would likely have been the same guys are before the invasion. So yes, the proles would have to learn Spanish. Or maybe revert back to Latin in the case of those working for the Church.

---

Nah. Rather the middle-management guys would learn both languages, simply to do their jobs. Who the Heck would spend the time and effort educating the damn farmers anyway ?

It usually made very little difference to the commoners whether the upper classes conversed among each other in French, Danish, Navaho or Mandarin Chinese. Especially by that time, when a major bigwig might well own land literally all over Europe and maybe beyond too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Nah. Rather the middle-management guys would learn both languages, simply to do their jobs. Who the Heck would spend the time and effort educating the damn farmers anyway ?

It usually made very little difference to the commoners whether the upper classes conversed among each other in French, Danish, Navaho or Mandarin Chinese. Especially by that time, when a major bigwig might well own land literally all over Europe and maybe beyond too.

---

This probably won't affect anyone's opinion, but that was what we were taught in AP British Lit. English remained somewhat Anglo-Saxon because the Normans never forced the commoners to learn English and the nobles ended up learning English to some degree to be able to converse with/order around their underlings. This is apparently why almost all English words related in some way to the upper classes or authority have French origins and 70% of our everyday words (the, that, his, him, house and so on) come from the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic.

My teacher is REALLY interested in etymology.