the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Casting off the Normal yoke is the highest calling for an Anglo-Saxon, so that bit is half right. Anglo-Saxons weren't an indigenous population to England though, that was the celts they themselves had displaced a few centuries prior.
That’s actually a common historical misunderstanding. Anglo-Saxons didn’t eradicate or exile the natives, they simply replaced their ruling class. And even then, Brythonic nobility were allowed to rule under them provided they swore fealty and adopted their customs. A lot of people don’t realize that ethnic cleansing is very resource intensive, and why would you waste perfectly good subjects/peasants (provided you aren’t brain-rotted by early modern nationalism or race theory)? It’s not like they had enough settlers to feasibly do it anyway.
This was pretty much the norm of the time for the migrations of various Germanic tribes west except the Anglo-Saxons were actually successful in imposing their languages on the natives rather than adopting the locals’ (as had happened with the Visigoths, Franks and Vandals), probably because Roman Britain was one of the less developed and populated provinces. It’s not even a loose theory: historical records show “English” lords with mixed or completely Romano-British names/titles and DNA testing shows most Englishmen are descended to the Stone Age people who came before the Celtic migrations.
I think this is important to point out because it’s the exact kind of misunderstanding Zionists exploit by claiming Arabs wiped out the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa, so Palestinians are ackchully foreign colonizers themselves. It’s the same story there: the language of Arab Muslims, either by sword or by conversion, was spread throughout pre-existing populations though not entirely (see Maghreb languages).
Good video showcasing this linguistically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FHRTpEhaAs&t=1s
That and of course the Celts in question are mostly Brythonic speakers, who wrote in Latin and are mixed with Roman colonizers.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
didnt the celts also "displace" the previous, even more original population?