Spike

I’m sorry to hear this mates, I really empathise with you guys having something that is meant to be representative of a community reduced to something as cynical as money laundering. It isn’t right and it’s a shame that not much can be done to force the idea of clubs being owned by fans as members. I really hate it. Do you think there would ever be something like Wimbledon FC movement in Liverpool/Merseyside

@Devil-Dick Willie I know you don't like the sport much anymore, neither do I really, I might watch one game a year but today I was watching old highlights of the sport from the 80s, 90s, and early 00s today, and I have to say; what the fuck happened? Looking at the crowds, how it was played it was full of SOUL but today it's so shitty to watch. I watched highlights of an Aus v UK match and it was fucking mad, every tackle was high, there was crazy passing, the refs weren't calling anything. and you know every single player was working as a brick layer during the week. It is unbelievable how shit it is to watch in comparison.

AEW shows look cheaper than those dreadful WWF years that had WCW crushing them in ratings.

That's why I replied with a joke come on Staniel

You take a year off my life every time you make a hyper-literal post like this

I said he had injury problems and a bad attitude. You just remember the STD part because it was funny

I bloody well warned you lot about that geezer, I dids

They’ve already backtracked on that.

except life lessons at da school of hard knockz

I know it predates 2003 but I just wanna mention the great Courtney Walsh! Was Jacques Kallis a pace bowler for Proteas? Shaun Pollock too right?

Sammy Guevara? Isn't he the one that said he would rape Sasha Banks or something

Yeah, it's a shame how much history was lost in those centuries. Who knows of all the interesting things that may have happened.

They really don't know that though. I could have been a small army that asserted dominance or a demographic displacement. It's literally impossible to this as a fact, there just isn't sources for it. We only know that from Germanic influence a culture that we call 'Anglo-Saxon' became the dominant culture, nobody knows exactly how or why that happened.

Huh? The Emperor intervened and forced the war council to surrender. The whole thing is a sham anyway, the USA nuked Japan because it wanted unconditional surrender and the Japanese were twiddling their thumbs because they wanted the condition of protecting the Imperial family from prosecution, which happened anyway making the nukes completely pointless.

That is true. But lets no pretend that didn't happen once a year under feudalism.

They aren't really sure if it happened. It wasn't like the Norman invasion, it happened during the Dark Ages so there really isn't must info on it. The whole process was over a few hundred years, there was no 'Anglo-Saxon' people that invaded England the 'Anglo-Saxons' were an amalgamation of different Germanic tribes (Angles, Jutes, Saxons) and whatever mish mash of Romanic Celts were there. Historians can't even agree if it was a mass migration that caused a demographic shift, or a ruling elite that set the culture.

That isn't displacement though. They died in their home.

You also have an idea of 'bloodline purity' being the only pre-requisite to being native. That opens up a whole of lot of issues, I think 'Indigenous' and 'Native' is more nuanced and simply DNA sequencing. I'd say for the most part the average 'British ethnically' British person is native, just because a Norse marauder raped one of their ancestors doesn't mean that person isn't 'Indigenous'. Otherwise how could most if not all Aboriginal Australians, and Native Americans claim to be Indigenous of their particular lands? It's a very complex issue that gets into some dicey ethical territory.

That article defines British as Anglo-Saxon, Scotland and Wales were not Anglo-Saxon, and before the Anglo-Saxons (and Romans) were Celtic peoples that were spread from Britain to Ireland, they were largely similar and the modern day equivalents were divergent of each other.. So I'm not really sure what that article is getting at.

That doesn't mean that a bunch of peasants from Caen were put there to replace them though.

@Devil-Dick Willie we've been exposed

Well you stated that no one (or very few) is indigenous or native so that essentially pulls the rug out on any and just about every movement that calls for justice and equality for First Nations peoples. If you follow the logic of your post you can easily replace the talking points of Europeans with Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians. I would also disagree with the idea that populations are largely non-Indigenous in Europe. Migration for the most part wasn't as huge as people you might think, and conquerors of lands usually just replaced the nobility, not the general populace. For instance in England just because the the Anglo-Saxon Kings were replaced by Norman kings doesn't mean the common people were displaced as well. I recall reading an article of how the basic DNA of people from the Italian peninsula is largely unchanged over a thousand years despite many different people having conquered the peninsula.

I’m not trying to fight here mate, I was just saying it’s particular to a specific part. ‘American’ is the USA’s official demonym , so how would I specify otherwise ?

It’s pretty broad strokes you’re using, that’s the implicit nature of using nebulous statements like yours. If you didn’t mean all English speakers, why would you address all of them? I don’t understand why you are being defensive about this. You’d say the same thing about broad strokes concerning German culture.

No it isn’t. It is an Americansim, because Americans often have to work for tips. The English speaking world isn’t one homogenous culture.